Funding, Deals & Partnerships: BIOLOGICS & MEDICAL DEVICES; BioMed e-Series; Medicine and Life Sciences Scientific Journal – http://PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com
4.1.8 Newly Found Functions of B Cell, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 4: Single Cell Genomics
The importance of B cells to human health is more than what is already known. Vaccines capable of eradicating disease activate B cells, cancer checkpoint blockade therapies are produced using B cells, and B cell deficiencies have devastating impacts. B cells have been a subject of fascination since at least the 1800s. The notion of a humoral branch to immunity emerged from the work of and contemporaries studying B cells in the early 1900s.
Efforts to understand how we could make antibodies from B cells against almost any foreign surface while usually avoiding making them against self, led to Burnet’s clonal selection theory. This was followed by the molecular definition of how a diversity of immunoglobulins can arise by gene rearrangement in developing B cells. Recombination activating gene (RAG)-dependent processes of V-(D)-J rearrangement of immunoglobulin (Ig) gene segments in developing B cells are now known to be able to generate an enormous amount of antibody diversity (theoretically at least 1016 possible variants).
With so much already known, B cell biology might be considered ‘‘done’’ with only incremental advances still to be made, but instead, there is great activity in the field today with numerous major challenges that remain. For example, efforts are underway to develop vaccines that induce broadly neutralizing antibody responses, to understand how autoantigen- and allergen-reactive antibodies arise, and to harness B cell-depletion therapies to correct non-autoantibody-mediated diseases, making it evident that there is still an enormous amount we do not know about B cells and much work to be done.
Multiple self-tolerance checkpoints exist to remove autoreactive specificities from the B cell repertoire or to limit the ability of such cells to secrete autoantigen-binding antibody. These include receptor editing and deletion in immature B cells, competitive elimination of chronically autoantigen binding B cells in the periphery, and a state of anergy that disfavors PC (plasma cell) differentiation. Autoantibody production can occur due to failures in these checkpoints or in T cell self-tolerance mechanisms. Variants in multiple genes are implicated in increasing the likelihood of checkpoint failure and of autoantibody production occurring.
Autoantibodies are pathogenic in a number of human diseases including SLE (Systemic lupus erythematosus), pemphigus vulgaris, Grave’s disease, and myasthenia gravis. B cell depletion therapy using anti-CD20 antibody has been protective in some of these diseases such as pemphigus vulgaris, but not others such as SLE and this appears to reflect the contribution of SLPC (Short lived plasma cells) versus LLPC (Long lived plasma cells) to autoantibody production and the inability of even prolonged anti-CD20 treatment to eliminate the later. These clinical findings have added to the importance of understanding what factors drive SLPC versus LLPC development and what the requirements are to support LLPCs.
B cell depletion therapy has also been efficacious in several other autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis (MS), type 1 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While the potential contributions of autoantibodies to the pathology of these diseases are still being explored, autoantigen presentation has been posited as another mechanism for B cell disease-promoting activity.
In addition to autoimmunity, B cells play an important role in allergic diseases. IgE antibodies specific for allergen components sensitize mast cells and basophils for rapid degranulation in response to allergen exposures at various sites, such as in the intestine (food allergy), nose (allergic rhinitis), and lung (allergic asthma). IgE production may thus be favored under conditions that induce weak B cell responses and minimal GC (Germinal center) activity, thereby enabling IgE+ B cells and/or PCs to avoid being outcompeted by IgG+ cells. Aside from IgE antibodies, B cells may also contribute to allergic inflammation through their interactions with T cells.
B cells have also emerged as an important source of the immunosuppressive cytokine IL-10. Mouse studies revealed that B cell-derived IL-10 can promote recovery from EAE (Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis) and can be protective in models of RA and type 1 diabetes. Moreover, IL-10 production from B cells restrains T cell responses during some viral and bacterial infections. These findings indicate that the influence of B cells on the cytokine milieu will be context dependent.
The presence of B cells in a variety of solid tumor types, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and melanoma, has been associated in some studies with a positive prognosis. The mechanism involved is unclear but could include antigen presentation to CD4 and CD8 T cells, antibody production and subsequent enhancement of presentation, or by promoting tertiary lymphoid tissue formation and local T cell accumulation. It is also noteworthy that B cells frequently make antibody responses to cancer antigens and this has led to efforts to use antibodies from cancer patients as biomarkers of disease and to identify immunotherapy targets.
Malignancies of B cells themselves are a common form of hematopoietic cancer. This predilection arises because the gene modifications that B cells undergo during development and in immune responses are not perfect in their fidelity, and antibody responses require extensive B cell proliferation. The study of B cell lymphomas and their associated genetic derangements continues to be illuminating about requirements for normal B cell differentiation and signaling while also leading to the development of targeted therapies.
Overall this study attempted to capture some of the advances in the understanding of B cell biology that have occurred since the turn of the century. These include important steps forward in understanding how B cells encounter antigens, the co-stimulatory and cytokine requirements for their proliferation and differentiation, and how properties of the B cell receptor, the antigen, and helper T cells influence B cell responses. Many advances continue to transform the field including the impact of deep sequencing technologies on understanding B cell repertoires, the IgA-inducing microbiome, and the genetic defects in humans that compromise or exaggerate B cell responses or give rise to B cell malignancies.
Other advances that are providing insight include:
single-cell approaches to define B cell heterogeneity,
glycomic approaches to study effector sugars on antibodies,
new methods to study human B cell responses including CRISPR-based manipulation, and
the use of systems biology to study changes at the whole organism level.
With the recognition that B cells and antibodies are involved in most types of immune response and the realization that inflammatory processes contribute to a wider range of diseases than previously believed, including, for example, metabolic syndrome and neurodegeneration, it is expected that further
basic research-driven discovery about B cell biology will lead to more and improved approaches to maintain health and fight disease in the future.
Feeling the Heat – the Link between Inflammation and Cancer
Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD
Researchers at Lerner Research Institute led by Dr. Xiaoxia Li revealed a new signaling pathway in a subset of hair follicle stem cells that can be linked to inflammation, wound healing and tumorigenesis giving new insights into how to potential target to slow or prevent tumor initiation. However, previous research shows that uncontrolled tissue repair is usually associated with tumor formation, but there is no direct connection between them.
The scientists found that the proinflammatory cytokine, IL-17A plays a vital role in aberrant tissue repair. They showed that when IL-17A signaling is turned on, Lrig1+ stem cells expanded and their progeny translocated to other layers of the skin in reply to injury. Through a series of investigations, Dr. Li showed that the presence and physical proximity of a series of proteins sets into motion a complex signaling cascade that results in activation of ERK5 (extracellular signal regulated kinase 5), which is ultimately responsible for the expansion and migration of Lrig1+ stem cells. While many proteins including interleukin-17 receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and Act1 are involved, tumor necrosis factor receptor associated factor 4 is the first receptor to fail, setting the entire signaling cascade in motion.
Considering that this is the first study to show that a proinflammatory cytokine can recruit a growth factor receptor to activate stem cells in support of tissue repair and tumorigenesis. This proves that tumor necrosis factor receptor associated factor 4 may be a viable therapeutic target to pursue in upcoming studies.
CHICAGO — A new class of cancer immunotherapies, led by pembrolizumab (Keytruda), has taken the oncology world by storm. But with this novel type of treatment comes a new challenge.
The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) wants to ensure that non-oncologist physicians know how to take care of their patients receiving these agents since doctors in other specialties may not be aware of the side effects related to the immunotherapies.
The initiative is one of the steps taken by the association’s Institute of Clinical Immuno-Oncology’s (ICLIO) in making immunotherapy available in the community.
ICLIO was launched 1 year ago to help prepare community cancer teams and centers to deal with the clinical, coverage, and reimbursement issues related to immunotherapy.
During the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting here MedPage Todayspoke with ACCC President Jennie R. Crews, MD, and ICLIO Chair Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD, about the institute’s growth and future plans.
Schwartzberg, chief of the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Tennessee, as well as executive director of the West Cancer Center in Memphis, said that the field of immunotherapy “is moving so fast that we can’t have enough education.”
“Needs change over time and last year many cancer practices became familiar with immuno-oncology and now we have to go deeper and broader.”
The broadening, he explained, involves educating other medical subspecialists about immune-related toxicities from the new agents.
“The problem is that we see related toxicities that are not managed well, and we’re having trouble with this.”
He cited as two primary examples toxic side effects such as colitis and pneumonitis and the necessity of educating gastroenterologists and pulmonologists about their relationship to immunotherapy.
Many times these subspecialists, as well as dermatologists, endocrinologists, emergency physicians, and internists see autoimmune-related toxicities and first think they are from chemotherapy or infection, according to Schwartzberg.
“But they are going to be going down a very bad path with these patients if they think this way,” noting that a colleague from a leading cancer center had recently mentioned that the institution’s emergency room staff didn’t always understand about immunotherapy reactions.
He said that, although ICLIO does not have direct access to reaching many other subspecialists, it was beginning to develop educational materials that oncologists could share with other medical colleagues, as well as to work with some of the subspecialty societies.
“Education, however, has to be across the board, and has to include patients as well,” he said, adding that many cancer immunotherapy patients were being provided with cards that explained their immunotherapy and could be handed to nurses and physicians at the outset of their medical intervention, saving time and the risk of undergoing the wrong treatment.
In a separate interview, Crews, medical director for Cancer Services PeaceHealth at St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham, Wash., said that ACCC members include both academic centers and community practices including both hospital-based and private. (An ACCC public relations representative monitored the interview.)
“We are not focused on what the science is, but rather on how do we take this technology out to the community to bring cancer to where patients are,” she said, adding that she and others are very passionate in the belief that cancer care should be delivered wherever cancer patients live.
She said since ICLIO started in June 2015, much of its infrastructure and programs have been established, including a webinar series, eNewsletters, eLearning Modules, tumor subcommittee working groups, an on-site preceptorship program, an ICLIO stakeholder summit, and an upcoming second national conference this fall in Philadelphia.
That conference will be preceded by a stakeholder summit bringing together providers, patient advocates, payers, pharmaceutical producers, and others, which the ACCC hopes will produce a white paper.
The last year has seen the growth of the initiative’s Scholars Program to about 50 oncologists who have received training through ICLIO’s learning modules.
These scholars will in turn eventually be able to serve as mentors to the 2,000 cancer programs with some 20,000 individual members that make up ACCC’s membership.
Crews said that to date about 700 cancer programs involving some 1,900 individuals have participated in the webinars, and about 100 people attended ICLIO’s first annual conference last October.
She said that in addition to the charitable contribution initially made by Bristol-Myers Squibb last year to help launch ICLIO, Merck has also provided an educational grant, but she would not disclose the amount of the funding.
Preclinical Data Presented at ASCO 2016 Annual Meeting Demonstrate that Single-Agent NKTR-214 Produces a Large Increase in Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes to Provide Durable Anti-Tumor Activity
SAN FRANCISCO, June 6, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR) today announced new preclinical data for NKTR-214, an immuno-stimulatory CD-122 biased cytokine currently being evaluated in cancer patients with solid tumors in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial being conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center and Yale Cancer Center. The new preclinical data presented demonstrate that treatment with single-agent NKTR-214 mobilizes tumor-killing T cells into colon cancer tumors. In addition, mouse pharmacodynamics data demonstrated that a single dose of NKTR-214 can increase and sustain STAT5 phosphorylation (a marker of IL-2 pathway activation) through one week post-dose. These data were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL from June 3-7, 2016.
“These latest data build upon our growing body of preclinical evidence demonstrating the unique mechanism of NKTR-214,” added Jonathan Zalevsky, PhD, Vice President, Biology and Preclinical Development at Nektar Therapeutics. “The studies presented at ASCO show that NKTR-214 promotes tumor-killing immune cell accumulation directly in the tumor, providing a mechanistic basis for its significant anti-tumor activity in multiple preclinical tumor models. The ability to grow TILs1 in vivo and replenish the immune system is exceptionally important. We’ve now learned that many human tumors lack sufficient TIL populations and the addition of the NKTR-214 TIL-enhancing MOA could improve the success of many checkpoint inhibitors and other agents, and allow more patients to benefit from immuno-therapy.”
In studies previously published for NKTR-214, when mice bearing established breast cancer tumors are treated with NKTR-214 and anti-CTLA4 (a checkpoint inhibitor therapy known as ipilimumab for human treatment), a large proportion of mice become tumor-free. Anti-tumor immune memory was demonstrated when tumor-free mice were re-challenged by implant with a new breast cancer tumor and then found to clear the new tumor, without further therapy. The new data presented at ASCO demonstrate that upon re-challenge, there is a rapid expansion of newly proliferative CD8 T cells and particularly CD8 effector memory T cells. Both cell populations were readily detectable in multiple tissues (blood, spleen, and lymph nodes) and likely contribute to the anti-tumor effect observed in these animals. Adoptive transfer studies confirmed the immune-memory effect as transplant of splenocytes from tumor-free mice into naïve recipients provided the ability to resist tumor growth.
“NKTR-214 provides a highly unique immune activation profile that allows it to access the IL-2 pathway without pushing the immune system into pathological overdrive,” said Dr. Steve Doberstein, Senior Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer. “NKTR-214’s unique immune-stimulatory profile and antibody-like dosing schedule positions it as a potentially important medicine within the immuno-oncology landscape.”
The data presentation at ASCO entitled, “Immune memory in nonclinical models after treatment with NKTR-214, an engineered cytokine biased towards expansion of CD8+ T cells in tumor,” can be accessed at http://www.nektar.com/2016_NKTR-214_ASCO_poster.pdf
NKTR-214 is a CD122-biased agonist designed to stimulate the patient’s own immune system to kill tumor cells by preferentially activating production of specific immune cells which promote tumor killing, including CD8-positive T cells and Natural Killer (NK) cells, within the tumor micro-environment. CD122, which is also known as the Interleukin-2 receptor beta subunit, is a key signaling receptor that is known to increase proliferation of these types of T cells.2
In preclinical studies, NKTR-214 demonstrated a highly favorable mean ratio of 450:1 within the tumor micro-environment of CD8-positive effector T cells relative to regulatory T cells.3 Furthermore, the pro-drug design of NKTR-214 enables an antibody-like dosing regimen for an immuno-stimulatory cytokine.4
About the NKTR-214 Phase 1/2 Clinical Study
A Phase 1/2 clinical study is underway to evaluate NKTR-214 in patients with advanced solid tumors, including melanoma, renal cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer. The first stage of this study, which is expected to be complete in the second half of 2016, is evaluating escalating doses of single-agent NKTR-214 treatment in approximately 20 patients with solid tumors. The primary objective of the first stage of the study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NKTR-214 and to identify a recommended Phase 2 dose. In addition, the study will also assess the immunologic effect of NKTR-214 on TILs and other immune cells in both blood and tumor tissue, and it will also include TCR repertoire profiling. Dose expansion cohorts are planned to evaluate NKTR-214 in specific tumor types, including melanoma, renal cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer.
The NKTR-214 clinical study is being conducted initially at two primary investigator sites: MD Anderson Cancer Center under Drs. Patrick Hwu and Adi Diab; and Yale Cancer Center, under Drs. Mario Sznol and Michael Hurwitz. Patients and physicians interested in the ongoing NKTR-214 study can visit the “Clinical Trials” section of www.mdanderson.org using identifier 2015-0573 or visit https://medicine.yale.edu/cancer/research/trials/active/858.trial.
About Nektar
Nektar Therapeutics has a robust R&D pipeline and portfolio of approved partnered medicines in oncology, pain, immunology and other therapeutic areas. In the area of oncology, Nektar is developing NKTR-214, an immuno-stimulatory CD122-biased agonist, that is in Phase 1/2 clinical development for patients with solid tumors. ONZEALD™ (etirinotecan pegol), a long-acting topoisomerase I inhibitor, is being developed for patients with advanced breast cancer and brain metastases and is partnered with Daiichi Sankyo in Europe. In the area of pain, Nektar has an exclusive worldwide license agreement with AstraZeneca for MOVANTIK™ (naloxegol), the first FDA-approved once-daily oral peripherally-acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA) medication for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC), in adult patients with chronic, non-cancer pain. The product is also approved in the European Union as MOVENTIG® (naloxegol) and is indicated for adult patients with OIC who have had an inadequate response to laxatives. The AstraZeneca agreement also includes NKTR-119, an earlier stage development program that is a co-formulation of MOVANTIK and an opioid. NKTR-181, a wholly owned mu-opioid analgesic molecule for chronic pain conditions, is in Phase 3 development. In hemophilia, Nektar has a collaboration agreement with Baxalta for ADYNOVATE™ [Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant)], a longer-acting PEGylated Factor VIII therapeutic approved in the U.S. and Japan for patients over 12 with hemophilia A. In anti-infectives, the company has two collaborations with Bayer Healthcare, Cipro Inhale in Phase 3 for non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis and Amikacin Inhale in Phase 3 for patients with Gram-negative pneumonia.
Immune memory in nonclinical models after treatment with NKTR-214, an engineered cytokine biased towards expansion of CD8+ T cells in tumor
Deborah H. Charych, Vidula Dixit, Peiwen Kuo, Werner Rubas, Janet Cetz, Rhoneil Pena, John L. Langowski, Ute Hoch, Murali Addepalli, Stephen K. Doberstein, Jonathan Zalevsky | Nektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA
INTRODUCTION
• Recombinant human IL-2 (aldesleukin) is an effective immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma with durable responses in ~ 10% of patients, but side effects limit its use
• IL-2 has pleiotropic immune modulatory effects[1] which may limit its anti-tumor activity
• Binding to the heterodimeric receptor IL-2Rβγ leads to expansion of tumor-killing CD8+ memory effector T cells and NK cells
• Binding to the heterotrimeric IL-2Rαβγ leads to expansion of suppressive Treg which antagonizes anti-tumor immunity
• NKTR-214 delivers a controlled, sustained and biased signal through the IL-2 receptor pathway.
• The prodrug design of NKTR-214 comprises recombinant human IL-2 chemically conjugated with multiple releasable chains of polyethylene glycol (PEG)
• Slow release of PEG chains over time generates active PEG-conjugated IL-2 metabolites of increasing bioactivity, improving pharmacokinetics and tolerability compared to aldesleukin
• Active NKTR-214 metabolites bias IL-2R activation towards CD8 T cells over Treg[2]
NKTR-214 was engineered to release PEG at physiological pH with predictable kinetics.
The kinetics of PEG release was evaluated in vitro by quantifying free PEG over time using HPLC.
The release of PEG from IL-2 followed predictable kinetics. Symbols = measured data; Line = curve fit based on first order kinetic model. R2 =0.997
In mice, a single dose of NKTR-214 gradually builds and sustains pSTAT5 levels through seven days post-dose. In contrast, IL-2 produces a rapid burst of pSTAT5 that declines four hours post-dose
C57BL/6 mice were treated with either one dose of NKTR-214 (blue) or aldesleukin (red); blood samples were collected at various time points post-dose. pSTAT5 in peripheral blood CD3+ T cells was assessed using flow cytometry. Top graph is an inset showing the 0-4 hour time period. Bottom graph shows the full 10 day time course of the experiment. Histograms on right depict pSTAT5 MFI for IL-2 (red) and NKTR-214 (blue)
Mobilization of lymphocytes from the periphery into the tumor is an inherent property of NKTR-214
A. C57BL/6 mice bearing established subcutaneous B16F10 melanoma tumors were dosed with either NKTR-214 (2 mg/kg, i.v., q9d x2) or aldesleukin (3 mg/kg, i.p. bid x5, two cycles)
B. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes were analyzed by flow cytometry from treated tumors (*, p<0.05 relative to vehicle; ‡, p<0.05 relative to aldesleukin)
C. Tumor growth inhibition from NKTR-214 was compromised when NKTR-214 was co-administered with Fingolimod, an agent that blocks lymphocyte trafficking.[3], (C57BL/6 mice, B16F10 subcutaneous mouse melanoma). Fingolimod was dosed qd p.o. 5 ug/animal. Lymphocyte count in blood was significantly reduced as expected, for study duration. Tumor growth inhibition (TGI) shown at study endpoint. (One-way ANOVA, Dunnets multiple comparison test ***=p<0.001, ****=p<0.0001 vs. vehicle; #=p<0.05 vs. NKTR-214)
D. Balb/c mice bearing established subcutaneous CT26 colon tumors were dosed with NKTR-214, 0.8 mg/kg i.v. q9dx3 or checkpoint inhibitors, 200 ug/mouse 2x/week. (*, p<0.05 relative to vehicle) E. T cell infiltration into mouse CT26 colon tumors was determined by TIL DNA fraction 7 days post-dose, Adaptive Biotechnologies, n=4 per group
The combination of NKTR-214 and anti-CTLA4 delivers durable anti-tumor activity and vigorous immune memory recall Durable treatment-induced immune memory demonstrated by:
A. Rejection of new tumors implanted into tumor-free mice without further therapy,
Durable anti-tumor immune memory demonstrated by rechallenging treated tumor-free mice with new tumors. New tumors can be eliminated without further treatment.
Balb/c mice initially were implanted with EMT6 murine breast tumors and treated with NKTR-214 0.8mg/kg q9dx3 and anti-CTLA4 200ug/mouse 2x/week. Several weeks later, tumor-free mice were rechallenged with tumor cells EMT6 (blue), CT26 (red) or vehicle (black). Tumor outgrowth occurred when non-related CT26 tumors were implanted. In contrast, tumors were rejected by up to 100% of mice when the same EMT6 tumors were implanted (2×106 EMT6 or CT26 cells)
B. Production of proliferating CD8 effector memory T cells in 3 tissues after tumor rechallenge and
Durable anti-tumor immune memory demonstrated by vigorous proliferative (Ki67+) CD8 T cell responses. The increased activity of these cells is greatest for mice previously treated with NKTR-214 and anti-CTLA4, rechallenged with the same tumor type (blue) compared to a different tumor (red) or mice who were never treated (brown, gray). Treated mice received therapy ~6 months prior. Top row shows total CD8+ cells, bottom row shows effector memory CD8+ in 3 tissues. The role of CD8 and NK cells in mediating the anti-tumor response was previously shown using depletion antibodies.[2]
Mice that became tumor-free from NKTR-214+anti-CTLA4 therapy and treatment naïve controls were rechallenged ~6 months later with either EMT6, CT26 or Sham buffer. No further treatment was given. Immune cells in spleen, lymph and blood were enumerated by flow cytometry, n=4/group. Graphs indicate proliferating Ki67+ total CD8 T cells (top) and effector memory CD8+ CD44hi CD67L-lo (bottom).
C. Transference of immune memory from tumor-free mice to recipient mice.
Durable anti-tumor immune memory demonstrated by adoptive spleen transfer from tumor-free mice to recipient mice. The recipients resist tumor growth without further treatment.
Mouse EMT6 breast tumors were implanted in recipient mice 1 day after receiving spleens from tumor-free mice or naïve mice; (****=p<0.0001 vs. normal control , two way ANOVA Tukey’s multiple comparison test, ns = non-significant)
CONCLUSIONS
• NKTR-214 mechanism of action delivers a controlled, sustained and biased signal to the IL-2 pathway, potentially mitigating systemic toxicities observed from bolus activation by IL-2 (aldesleukin)
• NKTR-214 provides marked efficacy in multiple tumor models, alone or in combination, using lower doses of reduced administration frequency
• Mobilization of T cells from the periphery into the tumor is an inherent property of NKTR-214
• NKTR-214 mechanism enables durable complete anti-tumor response with immune memory recall when combined with anti-CTLA4
• Treatment provides tumor-free mice that consistently eliminate new tumors even in the absence of further therapy • Mice becoming tumor-free from prior treatment reject new tumors by mounting a vigorous CD8+ effector memory response up to 6 months post-therapy
• Adoptive spleen transfer from tumor-free mice confers an anti-tumor response in recipient mice in the absence of further therapy
• NKTR-214 is being evaluated in an ongoing outpatient Phase 1/2 clinical trial for the treatment of solid tumors
Regulatory T (TReg) cells are essential for maintaining peripheral tolerance, preventing autoimmune diseases and limiting chronic inflammatory diseases. However, they also limit beneficial responses by suppressing sterilizing immunity and limiting antitumour immunity. Given that TReg cells can have both beneficial and deleterious effects, there is considerable interest in determining their mechanisms of action. In this Review, we describe the basic mechanisms used by TReg cells to mediate suppression and discuss whether one or many of these mechanisms are likely to be crucial for TReg-cell function. In addition, we propose the hypothesis that effector T cells may not be ‘innocent’ parties in this suppressive process and might in fact potentiate TReg-cell function.
This schematic depicts the various regulatory T (Treg)-cell mechanisms arranged into four groups centred around four basic modes of action. ‘Inhibitory cytokines’ include interleukin-10 (IL-10), interleukin-35 (IL-35) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β). ‘Cytolysis’ includes granzyme-A- and granzyme-B-dependent and perforin-dependent killing mechanisms. ‘Metabolic disruption’ includes high affinity IL-2 receptor α (CD25)-dependent cytokine-deprivation-mediated apoptosis, cyclic AMP (cAMP)-mediated inhibition, and CD39- and/or CD73-generated, adenosine–purinergic adenosine receptor (A2A)-mediated immunosuppression. ‘Targeting dendritic cells’ includes mechanisms that modulate DC maturation and/or function such as lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG3; also known as CD223)–MHC-class-II-mediated suppression of DC maturation, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA4)–CD80/CD86-mediated induction of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), which is an immunosuppressive molecule, by DCs.
Model for how effector T cells might boost Treg-cell function
This occurs in three stages. (a) Initial regulatory T (Treg)-cell activation induces production of regulatory factors such as interleukin-35 (IL-35). (b) Treg cells ‘sense’ the presence of recently activated effector T cells through a receptor–ligand interaction (cell surface or soluble). (c) This in turn boosts or potentiates Treg-cell function resulting in the enhanced production of regulatory mediators, such as IL-35, and perhaps the induction of new mediators.
Regulatory T (Treg) cells are essential for maintaining peripheral tolerance, preventing autoimmune diseases and limiting chronic inflammatory diseases. However, they also limit beneficial responses by suppressing sterilizing immunity and limiting anti-tumour immunity. Given that Treg cells can have both beneficial and deleterious effects, there is considerable interest in determining their mechanisms of action. In this Review, we discuss the basic mechanisms used by Treg cells to mediate suppression, and discuss whether one or many of these mechanisms are likely to be crucial for Tregcell function. In addition, we present the hypothesis that effector T cells may not be ‘innocent’ parties in this suppressive process and might in fact potentiate Treg-cell function.
Several sophisticated regulatory mechanisms are used to maintain immune homeostasis, prevent autoimmunity and moderate inflammation induced by pathogens and environmental insults. Chief amongst these are regulatory T (Treg) cells that are now widely regarded as the primary mediators of peripheral tolerance. Although Treg cells play a pivotal role in preventing autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes1,2, and limiting chronic inflammatory diseases, such as asthma and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)3,4, they also block beneficial responses by preventing sterilizing immunity to certain pathogens5,6 and limiting anti-tumour immunity7. A seminal advance in the analysis of Treg cells came with the identification of a key transcription factor, forkhead box P3 (FOXP3), that is required for their development, maintenance and function8,9. Mice and patients that lack FOXP3 develop a profound autoimmune-like lymphoproliferative disease that graphically emphasizes the importance of Treg cells in maintaining peripheral tolerance10-12 (BOX 1). Although FOXP3 has been proposed as the master regulator of Treg cells that controls the expression of multiple genes that mediate their regulatory activity13,14, this has been recently challenged raising the possibility that other transcriptional events may operate upstream of and/or concurrently with FOXP3 to mediate Treg-cell development15.
While Foxp3 has proven to be an invaluable marker for murine Treg cells, its role in human Treg cells is less straightforward (see BOX 2 for a discussion of Treg-cell markers). Humans that lack FOXP3 develop immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked syndrome (IPEX), a severe autoimmune disease that presents early in infancy. Although FOXP3 appears to be required for human Treg-cell development and function, expression of FOXP3 alone is clearly not sufficient as a significant percentage of human activated T cells express FOXP3 and yet do not possess regulatory activity16-20. Furthermore, induction of FOXP3 in human T cells by transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) does not confer a regulatory phenotype, in contrast to their murine counterparts20. Consequently, FOXP3 is not a good marker for human Treg cells (BOX 2). Whether this distinction is due to intrinsic differences between mouse and human FOXP3 and/or a requirement for an additional cofactor/ transcription factor is an important question that needs to be resolved.
Significant progress has been made over the last few years in delineating the molecules and mechanisms that Treg cells use to mediate suppression21,22. In this Review, we outline our current understanding of the mechanisms used by Treg cells to mediate suppression, and the challenges that lie ahead in defining their mode of action. We also discuss whether Treg cells are likely to depend on one, a few or many of these mechanisms. In addition, we propose that effector T cells may have a significant role in boosting and/or modulating Treg-cell function. Unless stated, we focus here primarily on the mechanisms that are used by thymus-derived natural CD4+CD25+ FOXP3+ Treg cells.
Basic mechanisms of Treg-cell function Defining the mechanisms of Treg-cell function is clearly of crucial importance. Not only would this provide insight into the control processes of peripheral tolerance but it would probably provide a number of potentially important therapeutic targets. Although this quest has been ongoing since interest in Treg cells was reignited in 199523, there has been significant progress in the last few years. From a functional perspective, the various potential suppression mechanisms of Treg cells can be grouped into four basic ‘modes of action’: suppression by inhibitory cytokines, suppression by cytolysis, suppression by metabolic disruption, and suppression by modulation of dendritic-cell (DC) maturation or function (FIG. 1).
Suppression by inhibitory cytokines Inhibitory cytokines, such as interleukin-10 (IL-10) and TGFβ, have been the focus of considerable attention as a mechanism of Treg-cell-mediated suppression. There has also been significant interest in their ability to generate induced (also known as adaptive) Treg-cell populations, either naturally in vivo or experimentally as a potential therapeutic modality (BOX 3). Although the general importance of IL-10 and TGFβ as suppressive mediators is undisputed, their contribution to the function of thymus-derived, natural Treg cells is still a matter of debate24. This is partly due to the general perception that Treg cells function in a contactdependent manner25,26. Indeed, in vitro studies using neutralizing antibodies or T cells that are unable to produce or respond to IL-10 and TGFβ suggested that these cytokines may not be essential for Treg-cell function25-28. However, this contrasts with data from in vivo studies29,30.
In allergy and asthma models, evidence suggests that both natural and antigen-specific Treg cells control disease in a manner that is, in part, dependent on IL-1029 and in some reports dependent on both IL-10 and TGFβ 31. Adoptive transfer of allergen-specific Treg cells induced significant IL-10 production by CD4+ effector T cells in the lung following allergen challenge and this Treg-cell-mediated control of disease was reversed by treatment with an IL-10- receptor-specific antibody32. However, suppression of allergic inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, and increased production of IL-10 still occurred following transfer of IL-10- deficient Treg cells, suggesting that Treg cells can suppress the Th2-driven response to allergens in vivo through an IL-10-dependent mechanism, but that the production of IL-10 by Treg cells themselves is not required for the suppression observed. This contrasts with a recent study suggesting that the Treg-cell-specific ablation of IL-10 expression resulted in increased lung allergic inflammation and hyperreactivity33.
This scenario might occur in other disease models. For instance, the effects of IL-10 can only be partially attributed to Treg-cell-derived IL-10 in the immune response to hepatitis B virus34 and in the allograft tolerance response elicited by splenocytes exposed to non-inherited maternal antigens35. Recently, it was also shown that IL-10 is crucial for the control of various infections in which Treg cells have been reported to be involved including Mycobacterium tuberculosis36, Toxoplasma gondii37, Leishmania major38, and Trichinella spiralis39. However, Treg cells were not the source of IL-10 in all of these infection models.
By contrast, several studies have shown that IL-10 production by Treg cells is essential for the prevention of colitis in mouse models of IBD40. Moreover, it appears that the tumour microenvironment promotes the generation of FOXP3+ Treg cells that mediate IL-10- dependent, cell-contact independent, suppression41. Similarly, in UV-radiation-induced carcinogenesis, IL-10 production by Treg cells appears to be important for blocking anti-tumour immunity42. IL-10 produced by Treg cells also appears to be crucial for IL-10-mediated tolerance in a model of hepatitis induced by concanavalin A43 and tolerance to bacterial and viral superantigens44. In addition, recent papers suggest new roles for Treg-cell-derived IL-10 in the induction of feto-maternal tolerance45 and B-cell-enhanced recovery from experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis46. Collectively, the picture that appears to be emerging is that the relative importance of Treg-cell-derived IL-10 is very dependent on the target organism or disease and on the experimental system. Furthermore, the Treg-cell-specific deletion of IL-10 did not result in the development of spontaneous systemic autoimmunity, but did result in enhanced pathology in the colon of older mice and in the lungs of mice with induced airway hypersensitivity, suggesting that the function of Treg-cell-derived IL-10 may be restricted to controlling inflammatory responses induced by pathogens or environmental insults33.
While some early in vitro studies using neutralizing antibodies to TGFβ or Treg cells lacking TGFβ 25,47 indicated that TGFβ was not required for natural Treg-cell function, other studies, both in vitro and in vivo suggested a critical role for Treg-cell surface bound TGFβ 48,49. Therefore, the importance of TGFβ for natural Treg-cell function has also been a controversial topic. Indeed, there has been considerably more focus recently on the importance of TGFβ in the development of induced Treg cells and perhaps in Treg-cell maintenance in general (BOX 3). However, there are studies that suggest that TGFβ produced by Treg cells may directly participate in effector T-cell suppression. For instance, effector T cells that are resistant to TGFβ-mediated suppression cannot be controlled by Treg cells in an IBD model50. In addition, TGFβ produced by Treg cells has been found to be important in the control of the host immune response to M. tuberculosis36, suppression of allergic responses31 and prevention of colitis in an IBD model51. Interestingly, TGFβ produced by Treg cells has also been implicated in limiting anti-tumour immunity in head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma52 and in follicular lymphoma53 by rendering T cells unresponsive to the tumour. TGFβ also appears to limit the anti-tumour activity of cytokine-induced killer cells54.
Membrane-tethered TGFβ can also mediate suppression by Treg cells in a cell-cell contactdependent manner48. Treg cells can control islet infiltration of CD8+ T cells and delay the progress of diabetes through membrane-tethered TGFβ 49. However, experiments using mice deficient in TGFβ-receptor (TGFβR) signalling in effector T cells or using TGFβ or TGFβR blocking reagents failed to show that membrane-tethered TGFβ is required for natural Treg cell development or function47. More recently, however, interest in membrane-tethered TGFβ has re-surfaced with the description of a previously unappreciated role for it in the tumour microenvironment. TGFβ associated with tumour exosome membranes appears to enhance the suppressive function of Treg cells and skew T cells away from their effector functions and towards regulatory functions55. Furthermore, ovalbumin-induced airway inflammation can be attenuated by heme oxygenase-1 through membrane-tethered TGFβ and IL-10 secretion by Treg cells56, a process that activates the Notch1–HES1 (hairy and enhancer of split 1) axis in target cells57. Thus, in light of the most current data, it now appears that soluble and/or membrane-tethered TGFβ may have a previously unappreciated role in natural Treg-cell function.
Recently, a new inhibitory cytokine, IL-35, has been described that is preferentially expressed by Treg cells and is required for their maximal suppressive activity58. IL-35 is a novel member of the IL-12 heterodimeric cytokine family and is formed by the pairing of Epstein–Barr virus induced gene 3 (Ebi3), which normally pairs with p28 to form IL-27, and p35 (also known as Il12a), which normally pairs with p40 to form IL-12. Both Ebi3 and Il12a are preferentially expressed by murine Foxp3+ Treg cells58,59, but not resting or active effector T cells, and are significantly upregulated in actively suppressing Treg cells58. As predicted for a heterodimeric cytokine, both Ebi3−/− and Il12a−/− Treg cells had significantly reduced regulatory activity in vitro and failed to control homeostatic proliferation and cure IBD in vivo. This precise phenocopy suggested that IL-35 is required for the maximal suppressive activity of Treg cells. Importantly IL-35 was not only required but sufficient, as ectopic expression of IL-35 conferred regulatory activity on naive T cells and recombinant IL-35 suppressed T cell proliferation in vitro58. Although IL-35 is an exciting addition to the Treg-cell portfolio, there is clearly much that remains to be defined about this cytokine and its contribution to Treg-cell function. For instance, it remains to be determined if IL-35 suppresses the development and/or function of other cell types such as DCs and macrophages.
It is now clear that three inhibitory cytokines, IL-10, IL-35 and TGFβ, are key mediators of Treg-cell function. Although they are all inhibitory, the extent to which they are utilized in distinct pathogenic/homeostatic settings differs suggesting a non-overlapping function, which needs further refinement.
……….
How many mechanisms do Treg cells need? Although efforts to define the suppressive mechanisms used by Treg cells continue, an important question looms large. Is it likely that all these molecules and mechanisms will be crucial for Treg-cell function? There are three broad possibilities.
One, a single, overriding suppressive mechanism is required by all Treg cells Until the entire mechanistic panoply of Treg cells is defined, one cannot completely rule out this possibility. However, this possibility would seem unlikely as none of the molecules and/ or mechanisms that have been defined to date, when blocked or deleted, result in the complete absence of regulatory activity — a consequence that one might predict would result in a ‘Scurfy-like’ phenotype (BOX 1). So, although Treg cells that lack a single molecule, for instance IL-10, IL-35 or granzyme B, exhibit significantly reduced suppressor function, a scurfy phenotype does not ensue. Given that none of the current Treg-cell mechanisms can exclusively claim this distinction, it seems unlikely that any ‘unknown’ molecules or mechanisms could do so either.
Two, multiple, non-redundant mechanisms are required for maximal Treg-cell function In the studies conducted to date, Treg cells that lack various suppressive molecules have been shown to be functionally defective. This favours a scenario where there are multiple mechanisms that can be used by Treg cells but they are non-redundant, with each molecule contributing to the mechanistic whole. At present, this possibility would seem plausible. Indeed, this is supported by the recent analysis of mice possessing a Treg-cell-specific ablation of IL-10 expression, in which enhanced pathology was observed following environmental insult33. One would predict that at some point we should be able to generate knockout mice that lack a particular set of genes which results in a complete loss of Treg-cell activity. For this to be truly non-redundant, this list would probably be restricted and small (2–4 genes).
Three, multiple, redundant mechanisms are required for maximal Treg-cell function With the plethora of regulatory mechanisms described to date and the possibility of more yet to be identified, it is conceivable that there are multiple mechanisms that function redundantly. Such a redundant system would help to mitigate against effector T-cell escape from regulatory control. Also, given the very small size of the Treg-cell population, a sizable arsenal may be required at the height of an effector T-cell attack. Of course, it is possible that a semi-redundant scenario exists.
These possibilities have been discussed from the perspective of there being a single homogeneous Treg-cell population. However, as for helper T cell subsets it remains possible that a few or even many different Treg-cell subsets exist24. Each of these may rely on one or multiple regulatory mechanisms. Several recent studies have provided support for both phenotypic and functional heterogeneity amongst Treg cells. For instance, it has recently been shown that a small sub-population of Treg cells express the chemokine receptor CCR6, which is associated with T cells possessing an effector-memory phenotype102. CCR6+ Treg cells appeared to accumulate in the central nervous systems of mice with experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) suggesting that they may have a prevalent role in controlling responses in inflamed tissues. Heterogeneous expression of HLA-DR has also been suggested to mark different subpopulations of functionally distinct human Treg cells103. Indeed, HLADR positive Treg cells were found to be more suppressive than their DR negative counterparts. One might speculate that their enhanced inhibitory activity is due to DR-mediated ligation of the inhibitory molecule LAG3 expressed by activated effector T cells95,96.
So, if multiple suppressor mechanisms exist, how might these be integrated and used productively by Treg cells in vivo? We would propose the following possible models21. First, a ‘hierarchical’ model in which Treg cells possess many mechanisms that could be used but only one or two that are really crucial and consistently important in a variety of regulatory settings. Second, a ‘contextual’ model where different mechanisms become more or less important depending on the background or context in which the Treg cells reside and the type of target cell that they have to repress. For example, some cell types may be inhibited primarily by cytokines, whereas others are most effectively suppressed through lysis by Treg cells. Alternatively, different mechanisms may be more effective in different tissue compartments or in different disease settings. This notion is supported by the recent analysis of mice in which IL-10 expression was specifically ablated in Treg cells33. Whereas Treg-cell-derived IL-10 was not required for the systemic control of autoimmunity, it did seem to be required from the control of inflammatory events at mucosal interfaces such as the lungs and colon. As a clear picture of the available Treg-cell weaponry emerges, an important challenge will be to determine their relative importance and contribution to Treg-cell function in different disease models.
A hypothesis: effector T cells potentiate Treg-cell function? Most cellular interactions within the immune system are bidirectional, with molecular signals moving in both directions even though the interaction has broader unidirectional intentions (for example, CD4+ T-cell help). However, to date the general perception is that Treg cells suppress and effector T cells capitulate. We hypothesize that this is in fact an incomplete picture and that effector T cells have a very active role in their own functional demise. Three recent observations support this view. First, we have recently examined the molecular signature of activated Treg cells in the presence and absence of effector T cells and were surprised to find that it was strikingly different, with hundreds of genes differentially modulated as a consequence of the presence of effector T cells (C.J.W. and D.A.A.V., unpublished observations). Second, we have shown that Ebi3 and Il12a mRNA are markedly upregulated in Treg cells that were co-cultured with effector T cells, supporting the idea that effector T cells may provide signals which boost IL-35 production in trans58. Third, we found that Treg cells were able to mediate suppression of effector T cells across a permeable membrane when placed in direct contact with effector T cells in the upper chamber of a Transwell™ plate (L.W.C. and D.A.A.V., unpublished observations). Interestingly, this suppression was IL-35 dependent, as Ebi3−/− Treg cells were unable to mediate this ‘long-distance’ suppression. Collectively, these data suggest that it is the ‘induction’, rather than the ‘function’, of Treg-cell suppression that is contact-dependent and that effector T cells have an active role in potentiating Treg-cellmediated suppression. Therefore, we hypothesize that receptor–ligand interactions between the co-cultured CD4+ effector T cells and Treg cells initiate a signalling pathway that leads to enhanced IL-35 secretion and regulatory activity (FIG. 2). While the molecule that mediates this enhanced Treg-cell suppression is unknown, it is possible that IL-2 may serve this function104. Given the contrasting genetic profiles of activated Treg cells in the presence and absence of effector T cells, it seems possible that this interaction may boost the expression of other regulatory proteins. It may well be that effector T cells unwittingly perform the ultimate act of altruism.
Concluding remarks Although significant progress has been made over the last few years in defining the mechanisms that Treg cells use to mediate their suppressive function, there is clearly much that remains to be elucidated and many questions persist. First, are there more undiscovered mechanisms and/ or molecules that mediate Treg-cell suppression? What is clear is that the transcriptional landscape of Treg cells is very different from naive or activated effector T cells. There are literally thousands of genes that are upregulated (or downregulated) in Treg cells compared with effector T cells. Although it seems unlikely that all or many of these will be crucial for Treg-cell function, it is quite possible that a few undiscovered genes might be important. It should be noted that although we are discussing mechanisms here, it is clear that some of these molecules may perform key Treg-cell functions, such as Treg-cell homing and homeostasis, which are likely to indirectly influence their suppressive capacity in vivo but don’t directly contribute to their inhibitory activity. It is also possible that some of these unknown molecules may represent more specific markers for the characterization and isolation of Treg cells, a particularly important issue for the analysis and use of human Treg cells (BOX 2).
Second, which mechanisms are most important? An important but potentially complex challenge will be to determine if a few mechanisms are important in many Treg-cell settings or whether different mechanisms are required in different cellular scenarios. At present it is difficult to assess this objectively as these mechanisms have predominantly been elucidated in different labs using distinct experimental systems and thus none have really been compared in side-by-side experiments. Furthermore, only recently have conditional mutant mice been examined that have a regulatory component specifically deleted in Treg cells33.
It almost goes without saying that although defining the Treg-cell mode of action is of great academic importance, it is also essential in order to develop effective approaches for the clinical manipulation of Treg cells. Given the capacity of Treg cells to control inflammation and autoimmunity, and their implication in blocking effective anti-tumour immunity and preventing sterilizing immunity, it seems probable that a clear understanding of how Treg cells work will present definitive opportunities for therapeutic intervention.
Mice that carry a spontaneous loss-of-function mutation (known as Scurfy mice) or a deletion of Foxp3 develop a fatal autoimmune-like disease with hyperresponsive CD4+ T cells9,12. More recently Foxp3:diptheria toxin receptor (DTR) knockin mice have allowed for the selective depletion of Treg cells following DT treatment105. These mice have been invaluable for dissecting the role of Foxp3 in Treg-cell function. Given the profound phenotype in these mice, there is a general expectation that genetic disruption of any key Treg-cell inhibitory molecule or mechanism would probably result in a Scurfy-like phenotype. Of course, it is also possible that deletion of a key Treg-cell gene may be more synonymous with DT-mediated Treg-cell depletion where Foxp3 may still serve to prevent expression of proinflammatory cytokines105. Nonetheless, this has lead to the notion that if mutant mice don’t have a Scurfy-like or a Treg-cell-depleted phenotype, then the disrupted gene probably isn’t important for Treg-cell function. This may not necessarily be correct. Indeed, it is possible that no mouse lacking a Treg-cell inhibitory effector molecule will ever be generated that develops a profound, spontaneous autoimmune disease21. It should be noted that mutant mice that are Helicobacter spp. and/or Citrobacter rodentium positive may have an exacerbated phenotype, as several studies have shown that opportunistic enteric bacteria can significant exacerbate gut pathology4. Ultimately, the occurrence of disease in knockout mice will depend on whether Treg cells rely on a single or multiple suppressive mechanisms. Given the number of genes induced or modulated by FOXP3, it is probable that a programme of intrinsic and extrinsic regulation is induced that involves multiple proteins9,13. Therefore, it would not be surprising if deletion of a single molecule does not provoke the profound Scurfy-like phenotype seen in mice that lack Foxp3.
Box 2. Treg-cell markers
Identifying discriminatory cell surface markers for the characterization and isolation of Treg cells has always been a critical goal. Although excellent markers exist for murine Treg cells, this goal has remained elusive for human Treg cells. Traditionally, murine and human Treg cells have been characterized as CD4+CD25+ (also known as interleukin-2 receptor α (IL-2Rα)). Indeed, murine Treg cells can be effectively isolated based on staining for CD4+CD25+CD45RBlow expression. However, the purity of isolated human Treg cells has always been an issue because T cells up-regulate CD25 upon activation106. Indeed, during the influenza or allergy season a substantial proportion of human CD4+ T cells can express CD25. Although the identification of forkhead box P3 (Foxp3) as a key regulator of Treg-cell development and function has facilitated their identification in the mouse8, many activated (non-regulatory) human T cells express FOXP3, precluding it as a useful marker for human Treg cells16-20. Consequently, the search for Treg-cell-specific cellsurface markers, particularly in humans, has continued in earnest with a growing number of candidates proposed (reviewed by Zhao and colleagues107). For instance, it was shown that the expression of CD127 (also known as IL-7R) is down-regulated on Treg cells and that this could be used to increase the purity of human Treg-cell isolation. Indeed, there is a 90% correlation between CD4+CD25+CD127low T cells and FOXP3 expression108, 109. In addition, it was recently found that Treg cells expressed a higher level of folate receptor 4 (FR4) compared with activated effector T cells110. It is also important to recognize that Treg cells, like their T helper cell counterparts, may be heterogeneous and thus a collection of cell surface markers could facilitate their isolation and functional characterization. Indeed, such heterogeneity has recently been described based on differential expression of HLA-DR or CCR6102,103. However, the general use of both markers remains to be fully established so it is quite probable that the search for better Treg-cell markers will continue for some time.
Box 3 Induced or adaptive Treg cells: development and mode of action
Naturally occurring FOXP3+CD4+CD25+ Treg cells develop in the thymus and display a diverse T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoire that is specific for self-antigens111,112. However, Treg cells can also be ‘induced’, ‘adapted’ or ‘converted’ from effector T cells during inflammatory processes in peripheral tissues, or experimentally generated as a possible therapeutic29,113,114. For instance, T regulatory 1 cells (Tr1) and T helper 3 cells (Th3) can be generated experimentally by, and mediate their suppressive activity through interleukin-10 (IL-10) and transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ), respectively114,115. Typically, these regulatory populations do not express FOXP3. In vivo, it has recently been suggested that stimulation of mouse effector T cells by CD103+ dendritic cells (DCs) in the presence of TGFβ and retinoic acid induces the generation of Foxp3+ T cells in the gutassociated lymphoid tissue (GALT)116-121. Furthermore, Treg cells can be preferentially induced in the periphery by exposure to αVβ8-integrin-expressing DCs122 or suppressor of cytokine signalling 3 (Socs3) −/− DCs123. Interestingly, independent of its role in generating induced Treg cells, TGFβ may also have an important role in helping to maintain Foxp3 expression in natural Treg cells124, a process that can be blocked by IL-4 or interferon-γ (IFNγ) 125. In contrast to mouse T cells, FOXP3 induction by TCR stimulation in the presence of TGFβ in human T cells does not confer a regulatory phenotype20. The mechanism of action of adaptive Treg cells may not necessarily be restricted to suppressive cytokines. Indeed, human adaptive Treg cells (CD4+CD45RA+ T cells stimulated with CD3- and CD46-specific antibodies) have also been shown to express granzyme B and killing target cells in a perforin-dependent manner126. Treg cells often have a restricted specificity for particular cell types, tumours or foreign antigens127. Therefore, induced Treg cells may be ideally suited to respond to infectious agents. This may also be of particular importance in the GALT and in the tumour microenvironment where TGFβ drives the conversion of induced Treg cells118,128. A significant challenge in deciphering data from in vivo experiments is to assess the contribution of natural Treg cells versus induced Treg cells, and to determine whether inhibitory molecules, such as IL-10 or TGFβ, were derived from the former or the latter (or elsewhere).
Aberrant PD-L1 expression through 3′-UTR disruption in multiple cancers.
Successful treatment of many patients with advanced cancer using antibodies against programmed cell death 1 (PD-1; also known as PDCD1) and its ligand (PD-L1; also known as CD274) has highlighted the critical importance of PD-1/PD-L1-mediated immune escape in cancer development1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. However, the genetic basis for the immune escape has not been fully elucidated, with the exception of elevated PD-L1 expression by gene amplification and utilization of an ectopic promoter by translocation, as reported in Hodgkin and other B-cell lymphomas, as well as stomach adenocarcinoma6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Here we show a unique genetic mechanism of immune escape caused by structural variations (SVs) commonly disrupting the 3′ region of the PD-L1 gene. Widely affecting multiple common human cancer types, including adult T-cell leukaemia/lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (8%), and stomach adenocarcinoma (2%), these SVs invariably lead to a marked elevation of aberrant PD-L1 transcripts that are stabilized by truncation of the 3′-untranslated region (UTR). Disruption of the Pd-l1 3′-UTR in mice enables immune evasion of EG7-OVA tumour cells with elevated Pd-l1 expression in vivo, which is effectively inhibited by Pd-1/Pd-l1 blockade, supporting the role of relevant SVs in clonal selection through immune evasion. Our findings not only unmask a novel regulatory mechanism of PD-L1 expression, but also suggest that PD-L1 3′-UTR disruption could serve as a genetic marker to identify cancers that actively evade anti-tumour immunity through PD-L1 overexpression.
Viruses are a dominant driver of protein adaptation in mammals.
Viruses interact with hundreds to thousands of proteins in mammals, yet adaptation against viruses has only been studied in a few proteins specialized in antiviral defense. Whether adaptation to viruses typically involves only specialized antiviral proteins or affects a broad array of virus-interacting proteins is unknown. Here, we analyze adaptation in ~1300 virus-interacting proteins manually curated from a set of 9900 proteins conserved in all sequenced mammalian genomes. We show that viruses (i) use the more evolutionarily constrained proteins within the cellular functions they interact with and that (ii) despite this high constraint, virus-interacting proteins account for a high proportion of all protein adaptation in humans and other mammals. Adaptation is elevated in virus-interacting proteins across all functional categories, including both immune and non-immune functions. We conservatively estimate that viruses have driven close to 30% of all adaptive amino acid changes in the part of the human proteome conserved within mammals. Our results suggest that viruses are one of the most dominant drivers of evolutionary change across mammalian and human proteomes.
Purdue scientists use adaptors to advance CAR-T therapy
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, developed in the 1990s, are a genetically engineered type of T cell that can target a specific cancer. Now, scientists at Purdue University say they’ve made improvements in this strategy–overcoming the several limitations of traditional CAR-T therapy.
Purdue professor of chemistry Philip Low and his team presented their findings at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in New Orleans last month.
T cells are a type of immune cell that recognizes and clears the body of invading cells or pathogens, like cancer. They are fine-tuned by the immune system in order to specifically target and kill these foreign invaders–but cancer cells may respond by jumping these safety barriers.
CAR-T therapy was therefore proposed and has been recently used for cancer treatment. It has been hailed for its promising remission rates after early stage clinical trials for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
“The problem is that the traditional engineered T-cell treatment can be too effective, sometimes killing tumor cells too fast and triggering a toxic reaction in a patient, and sometimes not stopping once the tumor has been destroyed and continuing to seek out and destroy healthy cells important to bodily functions,” Low said in a university news release. “We have found a potential way to control the engineered immune cells to overcome the limitations posed by CAR T-cell therapy.”
They did this by teaming up with Endocyte ($ECYT) scientist Haiyan Chu and designing CAR T cells that require activation by a small molecule adaptor before proceeding. In this way, they can carefully control the amount of active CAR T cells in the circulation.
So far, they have only tried the novel therapy in animal models, but when they tested it in mice they observed antitumor activity only when both the CAR T cells and the correct adaptor molecules were present.
Low believes it will allow clinicians to target multiple cancer subtypes at once. “Most tumors are heterogeneous and contain cancer cells that express different characteristics, including having different tumor-specific proteins on their surface,” he said in the release. “The cancer-targeting molecule on the adaptor we designed can be swapped out to target different molecules on other unrelated cancer cell surfaces. The idea is that a mixture of these adaptors can be given to a patient so that a single CAR T cell clone can be targeted to all of the relevant cancer subtypes in a patient.”
“In the past a new CAR T cell had to be designed for each desired cancer target,” Low said. “This system uses the same blind CAR T cell for all treatments. The adaptor molecule is what needs to be changed, and it is far easier to manipulate and swap pieces in and out of it than the T cells.”
A graphic depicting the activation and inactivation of CAR T cells through a small molecule adaptor is shown. Philip S. Low, Purdue’s Ralph C. Corley Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and director of the Purdue Center for Drug Discovery, and graduate student Yong Gu Lee led a team that designed new engineered CAR T cells that must be activated and targeted by a small molecule adaptor before they can kill cancer cells. The system has the potential to control the engineered cells to overcome existing limitations in CAR T-cell therapy. CREDIT Purdue University image courtesy of Yong Gu Lee
Purdue University researchers may have figured out a way to call off a cancer cell assassin that sometimes goes rogue and assign it a larger tumor-specific “hit list.”
T cells are the immune system’s natural defense against cancer and other harmful entities in the human body. However, the cells must be activated and taught by the immune system to recognize cancer cells in order to seek out and destroy them. Unfortunately, many types of cancer manage to thwart this process.
In the 1990s scientists found a way to genetically engineer T cells to recognize a specific cancer. These engineered T cells, called chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, T cells, have been recently used as treatment for cancer, said Philip S. Low, Purdue’s Ralph C. Corley Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and director of the Purdue Center for Drug Discovery who led the work.
“The problem is that the traditional engineered T-cell treatment can be too effective, sometimes killing tumor cells too fast and triggering a toxic reaction in a patient, and sometimes not stopping once the tumor has been destroyed and continuing to seek out and destroy healthy cells important to bodily functions,” Low said. “We have found a potential way to control the engineered immune cells to overcome the limitations posed by CAR T-cell therapy.”
Low and Purdue graduate student Yong Gu Lee collaborated with Endocyte Inc. scientist Haiyan Chu to design genetically engineered CAR T cells that must be activated and targeted by a small molecule adaptor before they can kill cancer cells. The technology has been tested in animal models but no human trials have been performed. A poster presentation describing the work was presented Tuesday (April 19, 2016) at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting in New Orleans.
“While the traditional CAR T cells could remain and replicate in the human body for many years, the adaptors we have created are expected to be excreted fairly quickly,” Lee said. “By controlling the level of adaptors in the system, we can control the numbers and potencies of active CAR T cells. Those that aren’t stimulated by an adaptor molecule are blind and do not recognize or target any cells. Eventually, if they remain inactive for a while, they should die and be eliminated from the body.”
A study in mice showed the anti-tumor activity was induced only when both the engineered CAR T cell and the correct adaptor molecules were present.
The system also offers the potential to treat multiple cancer subtypes at once, Low said.
“Most tumors are heterogeneous and contain cancer cells that express different characteristics, including having different tumor-specific proteins on their surface,” he said. “The cancer-targeting molecule on the adaptor we designed can be swapped out to target different molecules on other unrelated cancer cell surfaces. The idea is that a mixture of these adaptors can be given to a patient so that a single CAR T cell clone can be targeted to all of the relevant cancer subtypes in a patient.”
The adaptor molecule serves as a bridge between the CAR T-cell and the cancer cell. It is made with a yellow dye called fluorescein isothiocyanate on one end, to which the engineered CAR T cells have been designed to bind, and a cancer-targeting molecule on the other.
Low’s research has focused on the design and synthesis of technologies for targeted delivery of therapeutic and imaging agents to treat cancer, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and infectious diseases.
He has developed molecules that target folate-receptors and prostate-specific membrane antigen on the surfaces of cancer cells. Approximately 85 percent of ovarian cancers; 80 percent of endometrial and lung cancers; and 50 percent of breast, kidney and colon cancers express folate receptors on their cellular surfaces. Prostate-specific membrane antigen receptors are found on nearly 90 percent of all prostate cancers. Other tumor-specific ligands developed by Low’s lab can target each of the other major human cancers, he said.
Each CAR T cell has thousands of receptors on its surface to which an adaptor molecule can bind. One CAR T cell could have a variety of adaptor molecules bound to its surface and the cancer cell it targets will depend on which of those adaptors first encounters a targeted cancer cell. Once the CAR T cell binds to a cancer cell, it begins the process of destroying it. When that process is complete, the CAR T cell is released and can bind to a new cancer cell, he said.
“In the past a new CAR T cell had to be designed for each desired cancer target,” Low said. “This system uses the same blind CAR T cell for all treatments. The adaptor molecule is what needs to be changed, and it is far easier to manipulate and swap pieces in and out of it than the T cells.”
In addition to Low, Chu and Lee, members of the research group include Purdue postdoctoral research associates at the time of the study Srinivasarao Tenneti and Ananda Kumar Kanduluru.
Drug discovery is one of the priorities within Purdue Moves, an initiative designed to broaden the university’s global impact and enhance educational opportunities for its students. All of the moves fall into four broad categories: science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) leadership; world-changing research; transformative education; and affordability and accessibility.
The Purdue University Center for Drug Discovery supports more than 100 faculty in six colleges with research focused on several major disease categories: cancer; diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular; immune and infectious disease; and neurological disorders and trauma.
The center and drug discovery initiative builds upon Purdue’s strengths along all points of the drug discovery pipeline, including 14 core units to provide shared resources for analysis, screening, synthesis and testing of potential therapeutic compounds.
With more than 44 Purdue-developed compounds at various stages of preclinical development, and 16 in human clinical trials, Purdue is among the most productive universities in the world of drug discovery.
The center also is aligned with the university’s recently announced $250 million investment in the life sciences.
Endocyte Inc., a Purdue Research Park-based company that develops receptor-targeted therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases, funded the study, holds exclusive rights to the technology and assisted Purdue researchers in the development of the technology. Low is a founder and chief science officer of Endocyte Inc. and serves on the Endocyte board of directors.
Yong Gu Lee, Haiyan Chu, Srinivasarao Tenneti, Ananda Kumar Kanduluru, Philip S. Low
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells show significant potential for treating cancer due to their tumor-specific activation and ability to focus their killing activity on cells that express a tumor antigen. Unfortunately, this promising therapeutic technology is still limited by: (1) an inability to control the rate of cytokine release and tumor lysis; (2) the absence of an “off switch” that can terminate cytotoxic activity when tumor eradication is complete; (3) a failure to eliminate tumor cells that do not express the targeted antigen; and (4) a requirement to generate a different CAR T cell for each unique tumor antigen. In order to address these limitations, we have exploited a low molecular weight bi-specific adaptor molecule that must bridge between the CAR T cell and its targeted tumor cell by simultaneously binding to the chimeric antigen receptor on the CAR T cell and the unique antigen on the tumor. Using this bispecific adaptor, one can control CAR T cell cytotoxicity by adjusting the concentration and rate of administration of the adaptor. Because the half life of the adapter is <20 minutes in vivo, termination of CAR T cell killing can be accomplished by cessation of adapter administration. Moreover, when heterogeneous tumors containing cells that express orthogonal antigens must be treated, the same CAR T cell can be targeted to multiple antigens by attachment of the same CAR ligand to the appropriate selection of tumor-specific ligands. Finally, when the targeted tumor antigen is also expressed at low levels on normal cells, tumor specificity can be achieved by adjusting the affinity of the tumor-specific ligand to enable CAR T cell engagement only when a highly multivalent interaction is possible. To experimentally demonstrate the aforementioned benefits of using low molecular weight bispecific adaptors, CAR T cells were constructed by fusing an anti-fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) scFv to a CD3 zeta chain containing the intracellular domain of CD137 (i.e. CAR4-1BBZ T cells). Then, to enable their tumor-specific cytotoxicity, a bispecific adaptor molecule comprised of fluorescein linked to a small organic ligand with high affinity and specificity for a tumor-specific antigen (FITC-SMC) was synthesized. For these studies, the tumor-specific ligands were: i) folate for recognition of the folate receptor that is over-expressed on ~1/3 of human cancers, ii) DUPA for binding to prostate specific membrane antigen that is over-expressed on prostate cancers, and iii) NK-1R ligand that is over-expressed on neuroendocrine tumors. The ability of the same clone of CAR4-1BBZ T cells to eliminate tumors expressing each of the above antigens was then demonstrated by administration of the desired FITC-SMC to mice injected with the CAR4-1BBZ T cells. Our data show that anti-tumor activity: i) is only induced when both CAR4-1BBZ T cells and the correct antigen-specific FITC-SMC are present, ii) anti-tumor activity and toxicity can be sensitively controlled by adjusting the dosing of FITC-SMC, and iii) treatment of antigenically heterogeneous tumors can be achieved by administration of a mixture of the desired FITC-SMCs. Taken together, these data show that many of the limitations of CAR T cell technology can be addressed by use of a bi-specific adaptor molecule to mediate tumor cell recognition and killing.
CTLA-4 found in dendritic cells suggests New cancer treatment possibilities
Both dendritic cells and T cells are important in triggering the immune response, whereas antigen presenting dendritic cells act as the “general” leading T cells “soldiers” to chase and eliminate enemies in the battle against cancer. The well-known immune checkpoint break, CTLA-4, is believed to be present only in T cells (and cells of the same lineage). However, a new study published in Stem Cells and Development suggests that CTLA-4 also presents in dendritic cells. It further explores the mechanism on how turning off the dendritic cells in the immune response against tumors.
Dendritic Cell-Secreted Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte-Associated Protein-4 Regulates the T-cell Response by Downmodulating Bystander Surface B7.
The remarkable functional plasticity of professional antigen-presenting cells (APCs) allows the adaptive immune system to respond specifically to an incredibly diverse array of potential pathogenic insults; nonetheless, the specific molecular effectors and mechanisms that underpin this plasticity remain poorly characterized. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4), the target of the blockbuster cancer immunotherapeutic ipilimumab, is one of the most well-known and well-studied members of the B7 superfamily and negatively regulates T cell responses by a variety of known mechanisms. Although CTLA-4 is thought to be expressed almost exclusively among lymphoid lineage hematopoietic cells, a few reports have indicated that nonlymphoid APCs can also express the CTLA-4 mRNA transcript and that transcript levels can be regulated by external stimuli. In this study, we substantially build upon these critical observations, definitively demonstrating that mature myeloid lineage dendritic cells (DC) express significant levels of intracellular CTLA-4 that they constitutively secrete in microvesicular structures. CTLA-4(+) microvesicles can competitively bind B7 costimulatory molecules on bystander DC, resulting in downregulation of B7 surface expression with significant functional consequences for downstream CD8(+) T-cell responses. Hence, the data indicate a previously unknown role for DC-derived CTLA-4 in immune cell functional plasticity and have significant implication for the design and implementation of immunomodulatory strategies intended to treat cancer and infectious disease.
Non-invasive strategy to guide personalized cancer immunotherapy
Cancer immunotherapy is the rising hope to offer ultimate solutions for cancer. Neoantigens, derived from products of mutated genes in tumor cells, are found to be closely related to the efficacy of cancer immunotherapies. A non-invasive approach to identify unique, patient-specific neoantigens has been advanced by Dr. Steven Rosenberg’s group. A recent article published in Nature Medicine reported that a small population of circulating CD8+PD-1+ tumor-reactive T lymphocytes can be used to identify neoantigens, in addition to tumor-infiltrating T cells. The study paves the way for designing personalized cancer immunotherapy with a novel non-invasive approach.
Detection of lymphocytes that target tumor-specific mutant neoantigens-derived from products encoded by mutated genes in the tumor-is mostly limited to tumor-resident lymphocytes, but whether these lymphocytes often occur in the circulation is unclear. We recently reported that intratumoral expression of the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor can guide the identification of the patient-specific repertoire of tumor-reactive CD8(+) lymphocytes that reside in the tumor. In view of these findings, we investigated whether PD-1 expression on peripheral blood lymphocytes could be used as a biomarker to detect T cells that target neoantigens. By using a high-throughput personalized screening approach, we identified neoantigen-specific lymphocytes in the peripheral blood of three of four melanoma patients. Despite their low frequency in the circulation, we found that CD8(+)PD-1(+), but not CD8(+)PD-1(-), cell populations had lymphocytes that targeted 3, 3 and 1 unique, patient-specific neoantigens, respectively. We show that neoantigen-specific T cells and gene-engineered lymphocytes expressing neoantigen-specific T cell receptors (TCRs) isolated from peripheral blood recognized autologous tumors. Notably, the tumor-antigen specificities and TCR repertoires of the circulating and tumor-infiltrating CD8(+)PD-1(+) cells appeared similar, implying that the circulating CD8(+)PD-1(+) lymphocytes could provide a window into the tumor-resident antitumor lymphocytes. Thus, expression of PD-1 identifies a diverse and patient-specific antitumor T cell response in peripheral blood, providing a novel noninvasive strategy to develop personalized therapies using neoantigen-reactive lymphocytes or TCRs to treat cancer.
PD-1 identifies the patient-specific CD8+ tumor-reactive repertoire infiltrating human tumors
Adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can mediate regression of metastatic melanoma; however, TILs are a heterogeneous population, and there are no effective markers to specifically identify and select the repertoire of tumor-reactive and mutation-specific CD8+ lymphocytes. The lack of biomarkers limits the ability to study these cells and develop strategies to enhance clinical efficacy and extend this therapy to other malignancies. Here, we evaluated unique phenotypic traits of CD8+ TILs and TCR β chain (TCRβ) clonotypic frequency in melanoma tumors to identify patient-specific repertoires of tumor-reactive CD8+lymphocytes. In all 6 tumors studied, expression of the inhibitory receptors programmed cell death 1 (PD-1; also known as CD279), lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3; also known as CD223), and T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 (TIM-3) on CD8+ TILs identified the autologous tumor-reactive repertoire, including mutated neoantigen-specific CD8+ lymphocytes, whereas only a fraction of the tumor-reactive population expressed the costimulatory receptor 4-1BB (also known as CD137). TCRβ deep sequencing revealed oligoclonal expansion of specific TCRβ clonotypes in CD8+PD-1+ compared with CD8+PD-1– TIL populations. Furthermore, the most highly expanded TCRβ clonotypes in the CD8+ and the CD8+PD-1+ populations recognized the autologous tumor and included clonotypes targeting mutated antigens. Thus, in addition to the well-documented negative regulatory role of PD-1 in T cells, our findings demonstrate that PD-1 expression on CD8+ TILs also accurately identifies the repertoire of clonally expanded tumor-reactive cells and reveal a dual importance of PD-1 expression in the tumor microenvironment.
Cancer immunotherapy has experienced major progress in the last decade. Adoptive transfer of ex vivo–expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can cause substantial regression of metastatic melanoma (1, 2). Blockade of the interaction of cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4; also known as CD152) or programmed cell death 1 receptor (PD-1; also known as CD279) with their ligands using blocking antibodies alone or in combination have been shown to unleash an otherwise-ineffective immune response against melanoma (3–7), renal cell carcinoma (3), and non–small cell lung cancer (3). The antitumor responses observed in these clinical trials support the presence of naturally occurring tumor-reactive CD8+ T cells and their immunotherapeutic potential. In the particular case of TIL therapy, persistence of transferred tumor-specific T cell clones is associated with tumor regression (8). Moreover, retrospective clinical studies have shown an association of autologous tumor recognition by TILs and clinical response (9, 10), which suggests that enrichment of tumor-reactive cells could enhance clinical efficacy. However, the identification of the diverse repertoire of tumor-reactive cells limits the ability to study these cells, enhance clinical efficacy, and extend this therapy to other malignancies.
Melanoma TILs represent a heterogeneous population that can target a variety of antigens, including melanocyte differentiation antigens, cancer germline antigens, self-antigens overexpressed by the tumor, and mutated tumor neoantigens (11). The latter appear to be of critical importance for the antitumor responses observed after transfer of TILs, given the substantial regression of metastatic melanoma in up to 72% of patients in phase 2 clinical trials, in the absence of any autoimmune side effects in the great majority of patients (2). This contrasts with the modest antitumor activity but high prevalence of severe autoimmune manifestations observed after transfer of peripheral blood gene-engineered T cells expressing TCRs targeting shared melanocyte differentiation antigens MART1 and gp100 (12,13). Furthermore, T cells targeting mutated neoepitopes are not subject to negative selection in the thymus and may constitute the predominant naturally occurring tumor-reactive population in cancer patients. In support of this notion, a recent study reported the frequent detection and dominance of T cell populations targeting mutated epitopes in melanoma-derived TILs (14). Conversely, T cells targeting shared melanocyte differentiation antigens and cancer germline antigens in bulk melanoma TILs were represented at a strikingly low frequency (15). These findings have shifted our interest from the more accessible and commonly studied T cells targeting melanocyte differentiation antigens to T cells targeting unique patient-specific mutations. However, the often rare availability of autologous tumor cell lines necessary to study these reactivities, and the hurdles associated with the identification of the unique mutations targeted, have thus far hindered immunobiological studies of these T cell populations in the tumor.
Naturally occurring tumor-reactive cells are exposed to their antigen at the tumor site. Thus, the immunobiological characterization of T cells infiltrating tumors represents a unique opportunity to study their function and to identify the patient-specific repertoire of tumor-reactive cells. TCR stimulation triggers simultaneous upregulation of both costimulatory and coinhibitory receptors, which can either promote or inhibit T cell activation and function. Expression of the inhibitory receptors PD-1, CTLA-4, lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3; also known as CD223), and T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 (TIM-3) is regulated in response to activation and throughout differentiation (16, 17). Chronic antigen stimulation has been shown to induce coexpression of inhibitory receptors and is associated with T cell hyporesponsiveness, termed exhaustion (18). Exhaustion in response to persistent exposure to antigen was first delineated in a murine model of chronic lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (19), but has been observed in multiple human chronic viral infections (20–22) as well as in tumor-reactive MART1-specific TILs (23, 24), and has provided the rationale for restoring immune function using immune checkpoint blockade. Conversely, 4-1BB (also known as CD137) is a costimulatory member of the TNF receptor family that has emerged as an important mediator of survival and proliferation, particularly in CD8+ T cells (25–27). 4-1BB is transiently expressed upon TCR stimulation, and its expression has been used to enrich for antigen-specific T cells in response to acute antigen stimulation (28). However, expression of this marker has not been extensively explored in CD8+ lymphocytes infiltrating human tumors. In addition to changes in the expression of cosignaling receptors on the surface of T cells, antigen-specific stimulation typically results in clonal expansion. TCR sequence immunoprofiling can be used to monitor T cell responses to a given immune challenge even without a priori knowledge of the specific epitope targeted, through determination of the abundance of specific clonotypes (29, 30). However, there is limited knowledge regarding the TCR repertoire and the frequency of tumor-reactive clonotypes infiltrating human tumors.
We hypothesized that the assessment of unique phenotypic traits expressed by CD8+ TILs and TCR β chain (TCRβ; encoded by TRB) clonotypic immunoprofiling of lymphocytes infiltrating the tumor could provide a powerful platform to study antitumor T cell responses and evaluated their usefulness in identifying the diverse repertoire of tumor-reactive cells. Despite the accepted negative regulatory role of PD-1 in T cells, our findings establish that expression of PD-1 on CD8+ melanoma TILs accurately identifies the repertoire of clonally expanded tumor-reactive, mutation-specific lymphocytes and suggest that cells derived from this population play a critical role in tumor regression after TIL administration.
PD-1 was initially described to be expressed on a T cell hybridoma undergoing cell death (37). Its negative effect on T cell responses was first delineated in PD-1 knockout mice (38, 39). Since then, PD-1 expression and coexpression of other inhibitory receptors such as CTLA-4, TIM-3, BTLA, CD160, LAG-3, and 2B4 have become a hallmark of chronically stimulated T cells during chronic infection or in the tumor microenvironment. This altered phenotype, and the interaction of these receptors with their corresponding ligands on target cells, is associated with impaired proliferation and effector function frequently referred to as exhaustion (18, 24, 40). Expression of PD-1 in patients with chronic viral infections correlates with disease progression (22, 41). Additionally, CD8+ lymphocytes targeting melanoma differentiation antigens in the tumor express PD-1, CTLA-4, TIM-3, and LAG-3 and exhibit impaired IFN-γ and IL-2 secretion (23, 24), supporting a negative regulatory role of PD-1 and inhibitory receptors in naturally occurring T cell responses to cancer and providing a rationale for the treatment of cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
In the present study, we found that expression of PD-1 on CD8+ melanoma TILs captured the diverse repertoire of clonally expanded tumor-reactive lymphocytes. TCRβ sequencing revealed that tumor-reactive and mutation-specific clonotypes were highly expanded in the CD8+ population and preferentially expanded in the PD-1+ population. This is consistent with the TCR stimulation-driven expression of this receptor on T cells (42). The inhibitory receptors TIM-3 and LAG-3 and the costimulatory receptor 4-1BB were also expressed on CD8+PD-1+ TILs and could also be used to enrich for tumor-reactive cells. PD-1 was consistently expressed at a higher frequency and was found to be more comprehensive at identifying the diverse repertoire of tumor-reactive cells infiltrating melanoma tumors, although the less frequent PD-1–/TIM-3+ and PD-1–/LAG-3+ subpopulations could also represent tumor-reactive cells (Supplemental Figure 4 and Supplemental Table 6). Additionally, previous studies from our laboratory showing coexpression of PD-1 and CTLA-4 (23), and our preliminary data supporting coexpression of PD-1 and ICOS (Supplemental Figure 5), suggest that other receptors may also be used to distinguish tumor-reactive cells. Our present results further support immunotherapeutic intervention using immune checkpoint blockade using PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 blocking antibodies or 4-1BB agonistic antibody to restore the function of tumor-reactive lymphocytes, which is currently being actively pursued in the clinic (3, 4, 6, 7, 43). The potential cooperative mechanisms of inhibition of these receptors when engaged with their ligands (44, 45) suggests that the combined targeting of different inhibitory receptors can further enhance antitumor efficacy, as already shown with the combination of anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 (5). Our present results demonstrate that PD-1 identifies the clonally expanded CD8+ tumor-reactive population and suggest that expression of PD-1 on CD8+TILs could function as a potential predictive biomarker of antitumor efficacy using immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Naturally occurring tumor-reactive cells play a pivotal role in mediating antitumor responses after TIL transfer. Currently, expansion of TILs for patient treatment involves nonspecific growth of TILs from tumor fragments in IL-2, and the diversity and frequency of antitumor T cells present in the final T cell product used for treatment remains largely uncharacterized. Prospective clinical studies have reported that in vitro recognition of autologous tumor by TILs is associated with a higher probability of clinical response (9, 10), which suggests that enrichment of tumor-reactive cells could enhance clinical efficacy. This is consistent with the idea that both tumor-reactive and non–tumor-reactive cells may compete for cytokines in vivo, especially in the absence of vaccination. However, the isolation of the patient-specific repertoire of tumor-reactive cells is not possible with current technologies (14, 28, 46–50). Our findings established that expression of PD-1, TIM-3, LAG-3, and 4-1BB in CD8+ TILs can be used to enrich for tumor-reactive cells, regardless of the specific antigen targeted. One potential concern with isolating T cells expressing inhibitory receptors for therapy is that these cells may be exhausted or functionally impaired (23, 24, 44, 51, 52). However, we found that PD-1+, TIM-3+, and LAG-3+ CD8+ cells expanded in IL-2 were capable of secreting IFN-γ and lyse tumor in vitro. This supports the notion that immune dysfunction associated with coexpression of inhibitory receptors on CD8+ TILs can be reversed (21, 41, 51, 53), and may enable the reproducible enrichment of tumor-reactive cells for patient treatment. Notably, in a preliminary experiment (n= 8 nonresponders; 14 responders), there was no association between the frequency of expression of any of the markers studied in the CD8+ TILs in the fresh tumor and the clinical response to TILs derived from these tumor samples. However, the fresh tumors included in this study belonged to patients treated in several TIL protocols over the course of 10 years, and TILs were generated from these tumors using different methods, which makes these data difficult to interpret. In addition, the frequency of cells initially expressing PD-1 in the tumor may not reflect the frequency of the PD-1 derived cells in the infusion bag. For example, a low frequency of PD-1+ cells may be highly enriched during the process of TIL culture as a result of the presence of tumor cells. Although in vivo antitumor activity of tumor-isolated TILs based on PD-1 expression requires testing in a clinical trial, the observation that the overwhelming majority of tumor-reactive cells were derived from cells expressing PD-1 suggests that cells expressing PD-1 and inhibitory receptors in the tumor play a critical role in tumor regression after TIL administration.
The functional implications of selecting PD-1–, LAG-3–, TIM-3–, or 4-1BB–expressing T cells to enrich for tumor-reactive cells for patient treatment remain unclear. Although previous studies have reported differential expression of PD-1, LAG-3, and TIM-3 throughout differentiation (17), or preferential expression of TIM-3 in IFN-γ–secreting cells (54), our preliminary results have failed to show consistent phenotypic or functional differences between PD-1+, LAG-3+, TIM-3+, and 4-1BB+ selected TILs, including cytokine secretion, proliferation, and susceptibility to apoptosis (data not shown). We found that PD-1 expression was almost completely lost in the PD-1+ derived populations upon in vitro culture in IL-2. Conversely, TIM-3 and LAG-3 expression increased in the TIM-3– and LAG-3– populations after expansion. Overall, there were no differences in the expression of PD-1, TIM-3, or LAG-3 between any the populations after expansion. Thus, in agreement with previous reports (55, 56), we conclude that expansion in IL-2 alters the expression of these markers and compromises the potential use of inhibitory receptors to select for tumor-reactive cells after in vitro expansion. Recent work in animal models suggests that chronic antigen stimulation (57–59) or a tolerizing microenvironment (60) may lead to permanent epigenetic changes in T cells, raising the possibility that the restoration of function observed in previously exhausted or tolerized cells in presence of cytokines may only be transient. These results have not yet been corroborated in human tumor-specific cells. However, given that the overwhelming majority of tumor-reactive cells appear to derive from cells expressing PD-1 in the tumor, studying permanent versus transient reversion of exhaustion may have important implications for adoptive cell transfer of TILs.
Tumor-reactive cells can also be found infiltrating other tumor malignancies, such as renal cell carcinoma (61) or ovarian (62), cervical (63), or gastrointestinal tract cancers (64), albeit at lower frequencies. Our findings provide alternatives to enrich and study tumor-reactive CD8+ TILs through selection of cells expressing the cell surface receptors PD-1, LAG-3, TIM-3, and 4-1BB, a hypothesis that we are actively investigating. Additionally, our present findings showed that the frequency of a specific clonotype in the CD8+ and PD-1+ populations can be used to predict its ability to recognize tumor and isolate tumor-specific TCRs, thus providing means to overcome potential irreversible functional impairments of TILs (52).
2 reports with opposing results have generated controversy regarding which may be the optimal marker for the identification of the tumor-reactive repertoire, PD-1 or 4-1BB. In one report studying PD-1 expression in the tumor, the authors showed promising although inconsistent ability to enrich for shared melanoma-reactive cells (55). In a more recent article studying the role of 4-1BB in fresh ovarian TILs, Ye et al. concluded that expression of 4-1BB, but not PD-1, on lymphocytes defines the population of tumor-reactive cells in the tumor (65). The results of Ye et al. appear to contradict our present findings, showing that expression of PD-1 rather than 4-1BB more comprehensively identifies the repertoire of tumor-reactive cells in the tumor. However, these inconsistencies can be explained by different experimental approaches undertaken to study the immunobiology of TILs. First, Ye et al. found that expression of 4-1BB in fresh ovarian TILs and tumor-associated lymphocytes was low, and thus exposed the tumor to IL-7 and IL-15 (65). In the 1 patient sample in which the authors enriched for tumor-reactive cells from fresh ovarian TILs or tumor-associated lymphocytes exposed to IL-7 and IL-15, expression of 4-1BB was dependent on in vitro activation, but no longer represented the natural expression of 4-1BB in the fresh tumor. Second, with the exception of the 1 experiment described above, the enrichment experiments reported were carried out with melanoma or ovarian TIL lines expanded in IL-2 and cocultured with tumor cell lines in vitro. It is well known that IL-2 can change the activation status and also the expression of inhibitory receptors on T cells (data not shown and ref. 56). Thus, the experiment comparing expression of PD-1 and 4-1BB performed by Ye et al. (65) addressed the significance of these receptors after in vitro coculture of a highly activated melanoma TIL line with a tumor cell line, rather than the role of PD-1 and 4-1BB expression in CD8+ lymphocytes in the fresh tumor. Finally, both Inozume et al. and Ye et al. used matched HLA-A2 cell lines to assess tumor reactivity (55, 65). However, the use of HLA-matched tumor cell lines does not enable the assessment of reactivities against unique mutations that are present only in the autologous tumor cell line. In our current study, we used fresh melanoma tumors for all our experiments, and these were rested in the absence of cytokines to preserve the phenotype of TILs. Moreover, we used autologous tumor cell lines to assess tumor recognition. We believe that our experimental approach overcomes the limitations described above, enabling us to conclude that tumor-reactive cells can be detected in both the PD-1+/4-1BB+ and PD-1+/4-1BB– CD8+ TIL populations.
In summary, expression of PD-1 in CD8+ TILs in the fresh tumor identified and selected for the diverse patient-specific repertoire of tumor-reactive cells, including mutation-specific cells. In addition, analysis of the CD8+ TIL TCRβ repertoire in 2 melanomas showed that the frequency of a specific TCRβ clonotype in the CD8+ and PD-1+ populations could be used to predict its ability to recognize the autologous tumor. The use of inhibitory receptors and the frequency of individual TCRs to prospectively identify and select the diverse repertoire of tumor-reactive cells holds promise for the personalized treatment of cancer with T cell therapies, but may also facilitate the dissection and understanding of the immune response in human cancer patients.
Anti-PD-1 is poised to be a blockbuster, which other immune-checkpoint targeting drugs are on the horizon?
Clinical studies of anti-immune-checkpoint protein therapeutics have shown not only an improved overall survival, but also a long-term durable response, compared to chemotherapy and genomically-targeted therapy. To expand the success of immune-checkpoint therapeutics into more tumor types and improving efficacy in difficult-to-treat tumors, additional targets involved in checkpoint-blockade need to be explored, as well as testing the synergy between combining approaches.
Currently, CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 are furthest along in development, and have shown very promising results in metastatic melanoma patients. This is just a fraction of targets involved in the checkpoint-blockade pathway. Several notable targets include:
LAG-3 – Furthest along in clinical development with both a fusion protein and antibody approach, antibody apporach being tested in combination with anti-PD-1
TIM-3 – Also in clinical development. Pre-clinical studies indicate that it co-expresses with PD-1 on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Combination with anti-PD-improves anti-tumor response
VISTA – Antibody targeting VISTA was shown to improve anti-tumor immune response in mice
In addition, there are also co-stimulatory factors that are also being explored as viable therapeutic targets
OX40 – Both OX40 and 4-1BB are part of the TNF-receptor superfamily. Phase I data shows acceptable safety profile, and evidence of anti-tumor response in some patients
4-1BB – Phase I/II data on an antibody therapeutic targeting OX40 shows promising clinical response for melanoma, renal cell carcinoma and ovarian cancer.
Inducible co-stimulator (ICOS) – Member of the CD28/B7 family. Its expression was found to increase upon T-cell activation. Anti-CTLA-4 therapy increases ICOS-positive effector T-cells, indicating that it may work in synergy with anti-CTLA-4. Clinical trials of anti-ICOS antibody are planned for 2015.
Targeting single immune-checkpoint proteins has proven to be clinically effective at treating specific tumor types; can targeting two different proteins synergize effects?
Despite the success of targeting immune-checkpoint proteins, such as CTLA-4, PD-1, LAG-3, TIM-3 among others, percentages of patient response vary and rarely exceed 50%. It is highly tempting to speculate a strategy of dual-targeting of these checkpoint proteins. A recent presentation at the Keystone Symposium for Tumor Immunology: Multidisciplinary Science Driving Combination Therapy detailed findings of dual-targeting two immune-checkpoint proteins in mouse tumor models. Their key findings are summarized below:
Dual-targeting PD-1 and LAG-3 demonstrates superior efficacy over blocking either target alone
In addition to previous reported data on superior dual-targeting efficacy against fibrosarcoma (Sa1N) and colorectal adenosarcoma (MC38) tumor types1, anti-tumor activity against myeloma (SC J558L) and B-cell lymphoma (A20) hematological tumor types were also reported to be effacious.2
These exciting pre-clinical findings may result in further exploration of dual-targeting antibodies in the clinic, either as combination of existing antibody therapies, or as a new bi-specific antibody therapeutic.
Camelid single domain antibodies are a novel bi-specific antibody platform that may be used to develop a new generation of dual-targeting antibodies against multiple immune-checkpoint proteins.
New insight behind the success of fighting cancer by targeting immune checkpoint proteins
Immune checkpoint blockade has proven to be highly successful in the clinic at treating aggressive and difficult-to-treat forms of cancer. The mechanism of the blockade, targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1 receptors which act as on/off switches in T cell-mediated tumor rejection, is well understood. However, little is known about the tumor antigen recognition profile of these affected T-cells, once the checkpoint blockade is initiated.
In a recent published study, the authors used genomics and bioinformatics approaches to identify critical epitopes on 3-methylcholanthrene induced sarcoma cell lines, d42m1-T3 and F244. CD8+ T cells in anti-PD-1 treated tumor bearing mice were isolated and fluorescently labeled with tetramers loaded with predicted mutant epitopes. Out of 66 predicted mutants, mLama4 and mAlg8 were among the highest in tetramer-positive infiltrating T-cells. To determine whether targeting these epitopes alone would yield similar results as anti-PD-1 treatment, vaccines against these two epitopes were developed and tested in mice. Prophylactic administration of the combined vaccine against mLama4 and mAlg8 yielded an 88% survival in tumor bearing mice, thus demonstrating that these two epitopes are the major antigenic targets from checkpoint-blockade and therapies against these two targets are similarly efficacious.
In addition to understanding the mechanism, identification of these tumor-specific mutant antigens is the first step in discovering the next wave of cancer immunotherapies via vaccines or antibody therapeutics. Choosing the right antibody platform can speed the discovery of a new therapeutics against these new targets. Single domain antibodies have the advantage of expedited optimization, flexibility of incorporating multiple specificity and functions, superior stability, and low COG over standard antibody approaches.
Myeloid-derived-suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system
Dmitry I. Gabrilovich and Srinivas Nagaraj Nat Rev Immunol. 2009 March ; 9(3): 162–174. http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/nri2506
Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are a heterogeneous population of cells that expands during cancer, inflammation and infection, and that has a remarkable ability to suppress T-cell responses. These cells constitute a unique component of the immune system that regulates immune responses in healthy individuals and in the context of various diseases. In this Review, we discuss the origin, mechanisms of expansion and suppressive functions of MDSCs, as well as the potential to target these cells for therapeutic benefit.
The first observations of suppressive myeloid cells were described more than 20 years ago in patients with cancer1-3. However, the functional importance of these cells in the immune system has only recently been appreciated due to accumulating evidence that has demonstrated their contribution to the negative regulation of immune responses during cancer and other diseases. It is now becoming increasingly clear that this activity is contained within a population known as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Features common to all MDSCs are their myeloid origin, immature state and a remarkable ability to suppress T-cell responses (Box 1). In addition to their suppressive effects on adaptive immune responses, MDSCs have also been reported to regulate innate immune responses by modulating the cytokine production of macrophages4. Non-immunological functions of MDSC have also been described, such as the promotion of tumour angiogenesis, tumour-cell invasion and metastasis. However, as a discussion of these aspects of MDSC biology is beyond the scope of this article, the reader is referred to another recent Review on this topic5.
MDSCs represent an intrinsic part of the myeloid-cell lineage and are a heterogeneous population that is comprised of myeloid-cell progenitors and precursors of myeloid cells. In healthy individuals, immature myeloid cells (IMCs) generated in bone marrow quickly differentiate into mature granulocytes, macrophages or dendritic cells (DCs). In pathological conditions such as cancer, various infectious diseases, sepsis, trauma, bone marrow transplantation or some autoimmune disorders, a partial block in the differentiation of IMCs into mature myeloid cells results in an expansion of this population. Importantly, the activation of these cells in a pathological context results in the upregulated expression of immune suppressive factors such as arginase (encoded by ARG1) and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS; also known as NOS2) and an increase in the production of NO (nitric oxide) and reactive oxygen species (ROS). Together, this results in the expansion of an IMC population that has immune suppressive activity; these cells are now collectively known as MDSCs. In this
Origin and subsets of MDSCs It is important to note that MDSCs that are expanded in pathological conditions (see later) are not a defined subset of myeloid cells but rather a heterogeneous population of activated IMCs that have been prevented from fully differentiating into mature cells. MDSCs lack the expression of cell-surface markers that are specific for monocytes, macrophages or DCs and are comprised of a mixture of myeloid cells with granulocytic and monocytic morphology6. Early studies showed that 1–5% of MDSCs are able to form myeloid-cell colonies7-9 and that about one third of this population can differentiate into mature macrophages and DCs in the presence of appropriate cytokines in vitro and in vivo7-9. In mice, MDSCs are characterized by the co-expression of the myeloid lineage differentiation antigen Gr1 (also known as Ly6G) and CD11b (also known as αM-integrin)10. Normal bone marrow contains 20–30% of cells with this phenotype, but these cells make up only a small proportion (2–4%) of spleen cells and are absent from the lymph nodes in mice (Fig. 1). In humans, MDSCs are most commonly defined as CD14-CD11b+ cells or, more narrowly, as cells that express the common myeloid marker CD33 but lack the expression of markers of mature myeloid and lymphoid cells and the MHC-class-II molecule HLA-DR11, 12. MDSCs have also been identified within a CD15+ population in human peripheral blood13. In healthy individuals, immature myeloid cells with described above phenotype comprise ∼0.5% of peripheral blood mononuclear cells.
Recently, the morphological heterogeneity of these cells has been defined more precisely in part based on their expression of Gr1. Notably, Gr1-specific antibodies bind to both Ly6G and Ly6C, which are encoded by separate genes. However, these epitopes are recognized by different antibodies specific for each individual epitopes: anti-Ly6C and anti-Ly6G. Granulocytic MDSCs have a CD11b+Ly6G+Ly6Clow phenotype, whereas MDSCs with monocytic morphology are CD11b+Ly6G-Ly6Chigh 6,14. Importantly, evidence indicates that these two subpopulations may have different functions in cancer and infectious and autoimmune diseases15-17. During the analysis of ten different experimental tumour models, we found that both of these subsets of MDSCs were expanded. In most cases, however, the expansion of the granulocytic MDSC population was much greater than that of the monocytic subset6 and, interestingly, the two subpopulations used different mechanisms to suppress Tcell function (see later). In addition, the ability to differentiate into mature DCs and macrophages in vitro has been shown to be restricted to monocytic MDSCs6.
In recent years, several other surface molecules have been used to identify additional subsets of suppressive MDSCs, including CD80 (also known as B7.1)18, CD115 (the macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor)19, 20 and CD124 (the IL-4 receptor α-chain)20. In our own studies, we observed that many MDSCs in tumour-bearing mice co-express CD115 and CD1246; however, direct comparison of MDSCs from tumour-bearing mice and Gr1+CD11b+ cells from naive mice showed that they expressed similar levels of CD115 and CD124. In addition, sorted CD115+ or CD124+ MDSCs from EL-4 tumour-bearing mice had the same ability to suppress T-cell proliferation on a per cell basis as did CD115- or CD124-MDSCs. This suggests that, although these molecules are associated with MDSCs, they might not be involved in the immunosuppressive function of these cells in all tumour models.
Overall, current data suggest that MDSCs are not a defined subset of cells but rather a group of phenotypically heterogeneous myeloid cells that have common biological activity.
MDSCs in pathological conditions MDSCs were first characterized in tumour-bearing mice or in patients with cancer. Inoculation of mice with transplantable tumour cells, or the spontaneous development of tumours in transgenic mice with tissue-restricted oncogene expression, results in a marked systemic expansion of these cells (Fig. 1 and Table 1). In addition, up to a tenfold increase in MDSC numbers was detected in the blood of patients with different types of cancer11, 12, 21, 22. In many mouse tumour models, as many as 20–40% of nucleated splenocytes are represented by MDSCs (in contrast to the 2-4% seen in normal mice). In addition, these cells are found in tumour tissues and in the lymph nodes of tumour-bearing mice.
Although initial observations and most of the current information regarding the role of MDSCs in immune responses has come from studies in the cancer field, accumulating evidence has shown that MDSCs also regulate immune responses in bacterial and parasitic infections, acute and chronic inflammation, traumatic stress, surgical sepsis and transplantation. A systemic expansion of both the granulocytic and monocytic subset of MDSCs was observed in mice primed with Mycobacterium tuberculosis as part of complete Freund’s adjuvant (CFA). Acute Trypanosoma cruzi infection, which induces T-cell activation and increased production of interferon-γ (IFNγ), also leads to the expansion of MDSCs23, 24. A similar expansion of MDSCs has been reported during acute toxoplasmosis25, polymicrobial sepsis26, acute infection with Listeria monocytogenes or chronic infection with Leishmania major27 and infection with helminths28,29, 30, Candida albicans31 or Porphyromonas gingivalis32.
MDSC expansion is also associated with autoimmunity and inflammation. In experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), a mouse model of multiple sclerosis, an increase in CD11b+Ly6ChiLy6G− MDSCs was observed in the spleen and blood and these cells were found to enter the central nervous system during the inflammatory phase of the disease16. A significant increase in the number of MDSCs was also detected in experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis, an animal model of human intraocular inflammatory disease33, in the skin and spleens of mice that were repeatedly treated with a contact sensitizer to induce an inflammatory response34 and in inflammatory bowel diseases35. MDSCs were also found to infiltrate the spleen and suppress T-cell function in a model of traumatic stress36. Finally, a significant transient increase in MDSC numbers was also demonstrated in normal mice following immunization with different antigens such as ovalbumin or peptide together with CFA, a recombinant vaccinia virus expressing interleukin-2 (IL-2) or staphylococcal enterotoxin A 8, 37, 38. Therefore, current information clearly indicates that the expansion of an immunosuppressive MDSC population is frequently observed in many pathological conditions.
Expansion and activation of MDSCs Studies have demonstrated that the MDSC population is influenced by several different factors (Table 1), which can be divided into two main groups. The first group includes factors that are produced mainly by tumour cells and promote the expansion of MDSC through stimulation of myelopoiesis and inhibiting of the differentiation of mature myeloid cells. The second group of factors is produced mainly by activated T cells and tumour stroma, and is involved in directly activating MDSCs. Mechanisms of MDSC expansion—Factors that induce MDSC expansion can include cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2), prostaglandins 39-41, stem-cell factor (SCF)39, macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF), IL-642, granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)41 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) 43 (Table 1). The signalling pathways in MDSCs that are triggered by most of these factors converge on Janus kinase (JAK) protein family members and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) (Fig. 2), which are signalling molecules that are involved in cell survival, proliferation, differentiation and apoptosis44. STAT3 is arguably the main transcription factor that regulates the expansion of MDSCs. MDSCs from tumour-bearing mice have markedly increased levels of phosphorylated STAT3 compared with IMCs from naive mice45. Exposure of haematopoietic progenitor cells to tumour-cell-conditioned medium resulted in the activation of JAK2 and STAT3 and was associated with an expansion of MDSCs in vitro, whereas inhibition of STAT3 expression in haematopoietic progenitor cells abrogated the effect of tumour-derived factors on MDSC expansion46. Ablation of STAT3 expression in conditional knockout mice or selective STAT3 inhibitors markedly reduced the expansion of MDSCs and increased T-cell responses in tumour-bearing mice45, 47. STAT3 activation is associated with increased survival and proliferation of myeloid progenitor cells, probably through upregulated expression of STAT3 target genes including B-cell lymphoma XL, (BCL-XL), cyclin D1, MYC and survivin. So, abnormal and persistent activation of STAT3 in myeloid progenitors prevents their differentiation into mature myeloid cells and thereby promotes MDSC expansion.
Recent findings suggest that STAT3 also regulates MDSC expansion through inducing the expression of S100A8 and S100A9 proteins. In addition, it has been shown that MDSCs also express receptors for these proteins on their cell surface. S100A8 and S100A9 belong to the family of S100 calcium-binding proteins that have been reported to have an important role in inflammation48. STAT3-dependent upregulation of S100A8 and S100A9 expression by myeloid progenitor cells prevented their differentiation and resulted in the expansion of MDSCs in the spleens of tumor-bearing and naive S100A9-transgenic mice. By contrast, MDSCs did not expand in the peripheral blood and spleens of mice deficient for S100A9 following challenge with tumour cells or CFA49. In a different study, S100A8 and S100A9 proteins were shown to promote MDSC migration to the tumour site through binding to carboxylated N-glycan receptors expressed on the surface of these cells 50. Blocking the binding of S100A8 and S100A9 to their receptors on MDSCs in vivo with a carboxylated glycan-specific antibody reduced MDSC levels in the blood and secondary lymphoid organs of tumour-bearing mice50. In human colon tumour tissue, and in a mouse model of colon cancer, myeloid progenitor cells expressing S100A8 and S100A9 have been shown to infiltrate regions of dysplasia and adenoma. Furthermore, administration of a carboxylated glycan-specific monoclonal antibody (mAbGB3.1) was found to markedly reduced chronic inflammation and tumorigenesis51. Although the mechanisms involved require further study, these studies suggest that S100A9 and/or S100A8 proteins have a crucial role in regulating MDSC expansion, and may provide a link between inflammation and immune suppression in cancer.
Mechanisms of MDSC activation—Recently, it has become clear that the suppressive activity of MDSCs requires not only factors that promote their expansion but those that induce their activation. The expression of these factors, which are produced mainly by activated T cells and tumour stromal cells, is induced by different bacterial or viral products or as a result of tumour cell death 26. These factors, which include IFNγ, ligands for Toll-like receptors (TLRs), IL-13, IL-4 and transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ), activate several different signalling pathways in MDSCs that involve STAT6, STAT1, and nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) (Fig. 2).
Blockade of IFNγ, which is produced by activated T cells, abolishes MDSC-mediated T-cell suppression17, 52. STAT1 is the major transcription factor activated by IFNγ-mediated signalling and, in the tumour microenvironment, the upregulation of ARG1 and iNOS expression in MDSCs involved a STAT1-dependent mechanism. Indeed, MDSCs from Stat1-/- mice failed to up regulate ARG1 and iNOS expression and therefore did not inhibit Tcell responses53. Consistent with other findings, IFNγ produced by activated T cells and by MDSCs triggered iNOS expression and synergized with IL-4Rα and ARG1 pathways that have been implicated in the suppressive function of MDSCs20.
An important role for the signalling pathway that involves IL-4 receptor α-chain (IL-4Rα) and STAT6 (which is activated by the binding of either IL-4 or IL-13 to IL-4Rα) in MDSC activation has been demonstrated in several studies. It has been shown that ARG1 expression is induced by culturing freshly isolated MDSCs or cloned MDSC lines with IL-454. In addition, IL-4 and IL-13 upregulate arginase activity, which increases the suppressive function of MDSCs55. In line with these observations, other experiments have shown that STAT6 deficiency prevents signalling downstream of the IL-4Rα and thereby blocks the production of ARG1 by MDSCs56. In addition, the IL-4Rα–STAT6 pathway was also found to be involved in IL-13-induced TGFβ1 production by MDSCs in mice with sarcoma, which resulted in decreased tumour immunosurveillance57. This could be regulated by neutralizing both TGFβ and IL-1357. However, in breast tumor model IL-4Rα knockout mice retain high levels of MDSC after surgery56. In a different study that evaluated the separate role of TGFβ (not involving study of IL-4Rα) TGFβ-specific blocking antibody failed to reverse T-cell anergy in B-cell lymphoma in vitro58. It is possible that, the IL4Rα–STAT6 pathway might not be involved in promoting tumour immunosuppression in all tumour models.
TLRs have a central role in the activation of innate immune responses. Polymicrobial sepsis induced by the ligation and puncture of the caecum, which releases microbial products into the peritoneum and systemic circulation, was shown to result in an expansion of the MDSC population in the spleen that was dependent on the TLR adaptor molecule myeloid differentiation primary-response gene 88 (MyD88)26. However, wild-type mice and mice lacking a functional TLR4 protein had comparable expansion of the MDSC during polymicrobial sepsis, which suggests that signalling through TLR4 is not required for MDSC expansion and that MyD88-dependent signalling pathways that are triggered by other TLRs probably contribute to the expansion of MDSCs in sepsis26. This indicates that the activation of MDSCs is a fundamental outcome of the host innate immune response to pathogens that express TLR ligands.
It is important to note that an increase in the production and/or recruitment of IMCs in the context of acute infectious diseases or following vaccination does not necessarily represent an expansion of an immunosuppressive MDSC population. It is likely that under pathological conditions, the expansion of a suppressive MDSC population is regulated by two different groups of factors that have partially overlapping activity: those that induce MDSC expansion and those that induce their activation (which leads to increased levels of ROS, arginase, and/ or NO). This two-tiered system may allow for flexibility in the regulation of these cells under physiological and pathological conditions.
Mechanisms of MDSC suppressive activity Most studies have shown that the immunosuppressive functions of MDSCs require direct cell– cell contact, which suggests that they act either through cell-surface receptors and/or through the release of short-lived soluble mediators. The following sections describe the several mechanisms that have been implicated in MDSC-mediated suppression of T-cell function.
Arginase and iNOS—Historically, the suppressive activity of MDSCs has been associated with the metabolism of L-arginine. L-arginine serves as a substrate for two enzymes: iNOS, which generates NO, and arginase, which converts L-arginine into urea and L-ornithine. MDSCs express high levels of both arginase and iNOS, and a direct role for both of these enzymes in the inhibition of T-cell function is well established; this has been reviewed recently59, 60. Recent data suggest that there is a close correlation between the availability of arginine and the regulation of T-cell proliferation11, 61. The increased activity of arginase in MDSCs leads to enhanced L-arginine catabolism, which depletes this non-essential amino acid from the microenvironment. The shortage of L-arginine inhibits T-cell proliferation through several different mechanisms, including decreasing their CD3ζ expression62 and preventing their upregulation of the expression of the cell cycle regulators cyclin D3 and cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4)63. NO suppresses T-cell function through a variety of different mechanisms that involve the inhibition of JAK3 and STAT5 in T cells64, the inhibition of MHC class II expression 65 and the induction of T-cell apoptosis66.
ROS—Another important factor that contributes to the suppressive activity of MDSCs is ROS. Increased production of ROS has emerged as one of the main characteristics of MDSCs in both tumour-bearing mice and patients with cancer6, 10, 13, 53, 67-70. Inhibition of ROS production by MDSCs isolated from mice and patients with cancer completely abrogated the suppressive effect of these cells in vitro10, 13, 67. Interestingly, ligation of integrins expressed on the surface of MDSCs was shown to contribute to increased ROS production following the interaction of MDSCs with T cells10. In addition, several known tumour-derived factors, such as TGFβ, IL-10, IL-6, IL-3, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and GM-CSF, can induce the production of ROS by MDSCs (for review see Ref 71).
The involvement of ROS and NO in mechanisms of MDSC suppression are not restricted to neoplastic conditions, as inflammation and microbial products are also known to induce the development of a MDSC population that produces ROS and NO following interactions with activated T cells15. Similar findings were observed in models of EAE16 and acute Toxoplasmosis infection 16. In addition, it has been observed that MDSCs mediated their suppressive function through IFNγ-dependent NO production in an experimental model of Trypanosoma cruzi infection23.
Peroxynitrite—More recently, it has emerged that peroxynitrite (ONOO-) is a crucial mediator of MDSC-mediated suppression of T-cell function. Peroxynitrite is a product of a chemical reaction between NO and superoxide anoion (O2-) and is one of the most powerful oxidants produced in the body. It induces the nitration and nitrosylation of the amino acids cystine, methionine, tryptophan and tyrosine72. Increased levels of peroxynitrite are present at sites of MDSC and inflammatory-cell accumulation, including sites of ongoing immune reactions. In addition, high levels of peroxynitrite are associated with tumour progression in many types of cancer72, 73,74-78, which has been linked with T-cell unresponsiveness. Bronte and colleagues reported that human prostate adenocarcinomas were infiltrated by terminallydifferentiated CD8+ T cells that were in an unresponsive state. High levels of nitrotyrosine were present in the T cells, which suggested the production of peroxynitrites in the tumour environment. Inhibiting the activity of arginase and iNOS, which are expressed in malignant but not in normal prostate tissue and are key enzymes of L-arginine metabolism,, led to decreased tyrosine nitration and restoration of T-cell responsiveness to tumour antigens79. In addition, we have demonstrated that peroxynitrite production by MDSCs during direct contact with T cells results in nitration of the T-cell receptor (TCR) and CD8 molecules, which alters the specific peptide binding of the T cells and renders them unresponsive to antigen-specific stimulation. However, the T cells maintained their responsiveness to nonspecific stimuli80. This phenomenon of MDSC induced antigen-specific T-cell unresponsiveness was also observed in vivo in tumour-bearing mice53.
Subset-specific suppressive mechanisms?—Recent findings indicate that different subsets of MDSC might use different mechanisms by which to suppress T-cell proliferation. As described earlier, two main subsets of MDSCs have been identified: a granulocytic subset and a monocytic subset. The granulocytic subset of MDSC was found to express high levels of ROS and low levels of NO, whereas the monocytic subset expressed low levels of ROS and high levels of NO and both subsets expressed ARG16 (Fig.3). Interestingly, both populations suppressed antigen-specific T-cell proliferation to an equal extent, despite their different mechanisms of action. Consistent with these observations, Movahedi et al. also reported two distinct MDSC subsets in tumour-bearing mice, one that consisted of mononuclear cells that resembled inflammatory monocytes and a second that consisted of polymorphonuclear cells that were similar to immature granulocytes. Again, both populations were found to suppress antigen-specific T-cell responses, although by using distinct effector molecules and signalling pathways. The suppressive activity of the granulocytic subset was ARG1-dependent, in contrast to the STAT1- and iNOS-dependent mechanism of the monocyte fraction17. Finally, the same trend was observed in Trypanosoma cruzii infection. In this case, monocytic MDSCs produced NO and strongly inhibited T-cell proliferation, and granulocytic MDSCs produced low levels of NO and did not inhibit T-cell proliferation, although they did produce superoxide15. The biological significance of such functional dichotomy of these two MDSC subsets remains to be elucidated. Induction of TReg cells—Recently, the ability of MDSCs to promote the de novo development of FOXP3+ regulatory T (TReg) cells in vivo has been described18, 19. The induction of TReg cells by MDSCs was found to require the activation of tumour-specific Tcells and the presence of IFNγ and IL-10 but was independent of NO19. In mice bearing 1D8 ovarian tumours, the induction of TReg cells by MDSCs required the expression of cytotoxic lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4; also known as CD152) by MDSCs18. In a mouse model of lymphoma, MDSCs were shown to induce TReg-cell expansion through a mechanism that required arginase and the capture, processing and presentation of tumour-associated antigens by MDSCs, but not TGFβ58. By contrast, Movahedi et al. found that the percentage of TReg cells was invariably high throughout tumour growth and did not relate to the kinetics of expansion of the MDSC population, suggesting that MDSCs were not involved in TReg-cell expansion17. Furthermore, in a rat model of kidney allograft tolerance that was induced with a CD28-specific antibody, MDSCs that were co-expressing CD80 and CD86 were found to have a limited effect on the expansion of the TReg-cell population81. Although further work is required to resolve these discrepancies and to determine the physiological relevance of these studies, it seems possible that MDSCs are involved in TReg-cell differentiation through the production of cytokines or direct cell–cell interactions. Furthermore, MDSCs and TReg cells might be linked in a common immunoregulatory network (see later).
Tissue-specific effects on MDSCs A major unresolved question in this field is whether MDSCs mediate antigen-specific or nonspecific suppression of T-cell responses. Provided that MDSCs and T cells are in close proximity, the factors that mediate MDSC suppressive function (ROS, arginase and NO) can inhibit T-cell proliferation regardless of the antigen specificity of the T cells. Indeed, numerous in vitro studies have demonstrated the antigen nonspecific nature of MDSC-mediated suppression of T cells82 83. However, whether the situation is the same in vivo is not clear, and evidence suggests that MDSC-mediated immunosuppression in peripheral lymphoid organs is mainly antigen-specific. The idea that MDSC-mediated T-cell suppression occurs in an antigen-specific manner is based on findings that antigen-specific interactions between antigen-presenting cells and T cells result in much more stable and more prolonged cell–cell contact than nonspecific interactions82, 84, 85. Such stable contacts are necessary for MDSCderived ROS and peroxynitrite to mediate effects on the molecules on the surface of T cells that render the T cells unresponsive to specific antigen. It should be noted that such modification of cell-surface molecules does not lead to T-cell death nor prevent nonspecific T-cell activation. Other evidence that supports the idea that MDSCs mediate antigen-specific suppression is the finding that that MDSCs can take up soluble antigens, including tumourassociated antigens, and process and present them to T cells17 80; blockade of MDSC–T-cell interactions with a MHC-class-I-specific antibody abrogated MDSC-mediated inhibition of T cell responses in vitro86. The MHC-class-I-restricted nature of MDSC-mediated CD8+ T-cell suppression has also been demonstrated in vivo in tumor models53 and in the model of inflammatory bowel disease 35. This is consistent with the recent observation that large numbers of tumour-induced MDSCs did not inhibit CD8+ T-cell responses specific for unrelated antigens in a model of sporadic cancer87. Notably, it is currently unclear whether similar antigen-specific mechanisms of MDSC-mediated suppression operate on CD4+ T cells, as published studies have only assessed the effects of MDSCs on CD8+ T cells. Addressing this question is complicated by the fact that only a small proportion of MDSCs in many tumour models expresses MHC class II molecules.
The theory that MDSCs suppress T-cell responses in an antigen-specific manner helps to explain the finding that T cells in the peripheral lymphoid organs of tumour-bearing mice and in the peripheral blood of cancer patients can still respond to stimuli other than tumourassociated antigens, including viruses, lectins, co-stimulatory molecules, IL-2 and CD3- and CD28-specific antibodies21, 80, 88-90. Furthermore, even patients with advanced stage cancer do not have systemic immunodeficiency except in cases in which the patient has received high doses of chemotherapy or is at a terminal stage of the disease.
Evidence suggets that the nature of MDSC-mediated suppression at the tumour site is quite different to that which occurs in the periphery. MDSCs actively migrate into the tumour site10, where they upregulate the expression of ARG1 and iNOS, downregulate the production of ROS and/or rapidly differentiate into tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs) 52. The levels of NO and arginase produced by tumour-associated MDSCs and TAMs are much higher than those of MDSCs found in peripheral lymphoid organs of the same animals. In addition, TAMs produce several cytokines (reviewed in REFs91, 92) that suppress T-cell responses in a nonspecific manner (Fig. 4). The mechanisms by which MDSC functions are regulated within the tumour microenvironment, and how they differ from those that operate at peripheral sites, remain unclear. It is possible that tumour stroma, hypoxia and/or the acidophilic environment have a role.
Therapeutic targeting of MDSCs The recognition that immune suppression has a crucial role in promoting tumour progression and contributes to the frequent failure of cancer vaccines to elicit an immune response has resulted in a paradigm shift with respect to approaches for cancer immunotherapy. Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that successful cancer immunotherapy will be possible only with a strategy that involves the elimination of suppressive factors from the body. As MDSCs are one of the main immunosuppressive factors in cancer and other pathological conditions, several different therapeutic strategies that target these cells are currently being explored (Table 2). Although the studies described below were carried out in tumor-bearing hosts, it is likely that the same strategies will be useful in other pathological conditions in which inhibition or elimination of MDSCs is a therapeutic aim.
Promoting myeloid-cell differentiation—One of the most promising approaches by which to target MDSCs for therapy is to promote their differentiation into mature myeloid cells that do not have suppressive abilities. Vitamin A has been identified as a compound that can mediate this effect: vitamin A metabolites such as retinoic acid have been found to stimulate the differentiation of myeloid progenitors into DCs and macrophages 86, 93. Mice that are deficient in vitamin A94 or that have been treated with a pan-retinoic-acid-receptor antagonist95, show an expansion of MDSCs in the bone marrow and spleen. Conversely, therapeutic concentrations of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) results in substantial decrease in the presence of MDSCs in cancer patients and tumour-bearing mice. ATRA induced MDSCs to differentiate into DCs and macrophages in vitro and in vivo 12, 86, 96. It is probable that ATRA preferentially induces the differentiation of the monocytic subset of MDSCs, whereas it causes apoptosis of the granulocytic subset. The main mechanism of ATRA-mediated differentiation involved an upregulation of glutathione synthesis and a reduction in ROS levels in MDSCs 97. Decreasing the number of MDSCs in tumour-bearing mice resulted in increased tumour-specific T-cell responses, and the combination of ATRA and two different types of cancer vaccine prolonged the anti-tumour effect of the vaccine treatment in two different tumour models 96. Moreover, administration of ATRA to patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of MDSCs in the peripheral blood and improved antigen-specific response of T cells 21. Further studies will lead to identification of other agents that have a similar effect. So far, evidence suggests that Vitamin D3 may be another agent with the potential to decrease MDSC numbers in patients with cancer, as it is also known to promote myeloid-cell differentiation98.
Inhibition of MDSC expansion—Because MDSC expansion is known to be regulated by tumour-derived factors (Table 1), several studies have focused on neutralizing the effects of these factors. Recently, SCF has been implicated in causing MDSC expansion in tumourbearing mice39. Inhibition of SCF-mediated signalling by blocking its interaction with its receptor, c-kit, decreased MDSC expansion and tumor angiogenesis39. VEGF, another tumourderived factor that is involved in promoting MDSC expansion, might also be a useful target by which to manipulate MDSC. However, in a clinical trial of 15 patients with refractory solid tumours, treatment with VEGF–trap (a fusion protein that binds all forms of VEGF-A and placental growth factor) showed no effect on MDSC numbers and did not result in increased T-cell responses99. By contrast, treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell cancer with a VEGF-specific blocking antibody (known as avastin) resulted in a decrease in the size of a CD11b+VEGFR1+ population of MDSCs in the peripheral blood 100. However, whether avastatin treatment resulted in an improvement in antitumour responses in these patients has not been determined. Finally, inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase 9 function in tumorbearing mice decreased the number of MDSCs in the spleen and tumour tissues and resulted in a significant delay in the growth of spontaneous NeuT tumours in transgenic BALB/c mice101. However, the mechanism responsible for this outcome remains to be elucidated.
Inhibition of MDSC function—Another approach by which to inhibit MDSCs is to block the signalling pathways that regulate the production of suppressive factors by these cells. One potential target by which this might be achieved is COX2. COX2 is required for the production of prostaglandin E2, which in 3LL tumour cells61 and mammary carcinoma40 has been shown to induce the upregulation of ARG1 expression by MDSCs, thereby inducing their suppressive function. Accordingly, COX2 inhibitors were found to downregulate the expression of ARG1 by MDSCs, which improved antitumour T-cell responses and enhanced the therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy102, 103. Similarly, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors such as sildenafil were found to downregulate the expression of arginase and iNOS expression by MDSCs, thereby inhibiting their suppressive function in growing tumours104. This resulted in the induction of a measurable anti-tumour immune response and a marked delay of tumour progression in several mouse models 104.
ROS inhibitors have also been shown to be effective for decreasing MDSC-mediated immune suppression in tumour-bearing mice. The coupling of a NO-releasing moiety to a conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug has proven to be an efficient means by which to inhibit the production of ROS. One such drug, nitroaspirin, was found to limit the activity of ARG1 and iNOS in spleen MDSCs105. In combination with vaccination with endogenous retroviral gp70 antigen, nitroaspirin inhibited MDSCs function and increased the number and function of tumour-antigen-specific T cells105.
Elimination of MDSCs—MDSCs can be directly eliminated in pathological settings by using some chemotherapeutic drugs. Administration of one such drug, gemcitabine, to mice that were bearing large tumours resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of MDSCs in the spleen and resulted in a marked improvement in the anti-tumour response induced by immunotherapy106, 107. This effect was specific to MDSCs, as a significant decrease in the number of T or B cells was not observed in these animals. Furthermore, in a study of 17 patients with early-stage breast cancer that were treated with doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide chemotherapy, a decrease in the level of MDSCs in the peripheral blood was observed22.
Evidence suggests that there is a broad range of methods that will be effective for targeting of the number and/or function of MDSCs in vivo. These strategies will undoubtedly help to further investigate the biology of these cells as well as expedite clinical applications to treat cancer and other pathological conditions.
MDSCs as regulatory myeloid cells? The wealth of information that has accumulated in recent years regarding the biology of MDSCs suggests that these cells might have evolved as a regulatory component of the immune system. These cells are absent under physiological conditions, as IMCs in naive mice are an intrinsic part of normal haematopoiesis that are not immunosuppressive in an unactivated state. In conditions of acute stress, infection or immunization, there is a transient expansion of this IMC population, which then quickly differentiates into mature myeloid cells. This transient IMC population can mediate the suppressive functions that are characteristic of MDSCs but, because the acute conditions are short-lived, the suppressive functions of this transient population have a minimal impact on the overall immune response. However, these cells probably function as important ‘gatekeepers’ that prevent pathological immune-mediated damage.
The role of the MDSC population in settings of chronic infections and cancer is very different. In these pathological conditions, the prolonged and marked expansion of IMCs and their subsequent activation leads to the expansion of a large population of MDSCs with immunosuppressive abilities. MDSCs accumulate in peripheral lymphoid organs and migrate to tumour sites, where they contribute to immunosuppression. Furthermore, some evidence suggests that MDSCs can also induce expansion of regulatory T cells. Future studies will reveal whether MDSCs can be considered part of a natural immune regulatory network.
Concluding remarks The field of MDSC research has more outstanding questions than answers. The roles of specific MDSC subsets in mediating T-cell suppression, and the molecular mechanisms responsible for inhibition of myeloid-cell differentiation, need to be elucidated. The issue of whether Tcell suppression occurs in an antigen-specific manner remains to be clarified, as do the mechanisms that cause MDSC migration to peripheral lymphoid organs. Some of the main priorities in this field should include a better characterization of human MDSCs and a clear understanding of whether targeting these cells in patients with various pathological conditions will be of clinical significance. Conversely, adoptive cellular therapy with MDSCs may be an attractive opportunity by which to inhibit immune responses in the setting of autoimmune disease or transplantation. The challenge for these approaches will be to devise methods by which to generate these cells ex vivo in clinical-grade conditions such that they are suitable for administration to patients. If the past 5–6 years are an indication of the potential for progress in this area, it is safe to estimate that there will soon be significantly more discoveries that further our understanding about the biology and clinical utility of MDSCs.
Box 1. Definition of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs)
• a heterogeneous population of cells of myeloid origin that consist of myeloid progenitors and immature macrophages, immature granulocytes and immature dendritic cells
• present in activated state that is characterized by the increased production of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, and of arginase
• potent suppressors of various T-cell functions • in mice, their phenotype is CD11b+Gr1+, although functionally distinct subsets within this population have been identified (see main text)
• in humans, their phenotype is Lin-HLA-DR-CD33+ or CD11b+CD14-CD33+.
Human cells do not express a marker homologous to mouse Gr1. MDSC have also been identified within a CD15+ population in human peripheral blood.
• in the steady state, immature myeloid cells lack suppressive activity and are present in the bone marrow, but not in secondary lymphoid organs
• accumulation of MDSCs in lymphoid organs and in tumours in response to various growth factors and cytokines is associated with various pathological conditions (most notably cancer)
• in tumour tissues, MDSCs can be differentiated from tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs) by their high expression of Gr1 (not expressed by TAMs) by their low expression of F4/80 (expressed by TAMs), by the fact that a large proportion of MDSCs have a granulocytic morphology and based the upregulated expression of both arginase and inducible nitric oxide synthase by MDSCs but not TAMs.
References
1. Young MRI, Newby M, Wepsic TH. Hematopoiesis and suppressor bone marrow cells in mice bearing large metastatic Lewis lung carcinoma tumors. Cancer Res 1987;47:100–106. [PubMed: 2947676]
2. Buessow SC, Paul RD, Lopez DM. Influence of mammary tumor progression on phenotype and function of spleen and in situ lymphocytes in mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 1984;73:249–255. [PubMed: 6610791]
3. Seung L, Rowley D, Dubeym P, Schreiber H. Synergy between T-cell immunity and inhibition of paracrine stimulation causes tumor rejection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1995;92:6254–6258. [PubMed: 7603979]
4. Sinha P, Clements VK, Bunt SK, Albelda SM, Ostrand-Rosenberg S. Crosstalk between myeloidderived suppressor cells and macrophages subverts tumor immunity toward a type 2 response. J Immunol 2007;179:977–983. [PubMed: 17617589]
5. Murdoch C, Muthana M, Coffelt SB, Lewis CE. The role of myeloid cells in the promotion of tumour angiogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer 2008;8:618–631. [PubMed: 18633355]
6. Youn JI, Nagaraj S, Collazo M, Gabrilovich DI. Subsets of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumorbearing mice. J Immunol 2008;181:5791–5802. [PubMed: 18832739] Together with reference # 17 this paper described functional differences between subsets of MDSC.
7. Bronte V, et al. Identification of a CD11b(+)/Gr-1(+)/CD31(+) myeloid progenitor capable of activating or suppressing CD8(+) T cells. Blood 2000;96:3838. [PubMed: 11090068]
8. Kusmartsev S, Gabrilovich DI. Inhibition of myeloid cell differentiation in cancer: The role of reactive oxygen species. J Leukoc Biol 2003;74:186–196. [PubMed: 12885935]
9. Li Q, Pan PY, Gu P, Xu D, Chen SH. Role of immature myeloid Gr-1+ cells in the development of antitumor immunity. Cancer Res 2004;64:1130–1139. [PubMed: 14871848] …..
“The proto-oncogenic transcription factor Myc is known to promote transcription of genes for the cell cycle as well as aerobic glycolysis and glutamine metabolism. Recently, Myc has been shown to play an essential role to induce the expression of glycolytic and glutamine metabolism genes in the initial hours of T cell activation. In a similar fashion, the transcription factor HIF1a can up-regulate glycolytic genes to allow cancer cells to survive under hypoxic conditions. “
A little adversity builds character, or so the saying goes. True or not, the saying does seem an apt description of a developmental phenomenon that shapes gene expression. While it knows nothing of character, the gene expression apparatus appears to respond well to short-term mitochondrial stress that occurs early in development. In fact, transient stress seems to result in lasting benefits. These benefits, which include improved metabolic function and increased longevity, have been observed in both worms and mice, and may even occur—or be made to occur—in humans.
Gene expression is known to be subject to reprogramming by epigenetic modifiers, but such modifiers generally affect metabolism or lifespan, not both. A new set of epigenetic modifiers, however, has been found to trigger changes that do just that—both improve metabolism and extend lifespan.
Scientists based at the University of California, Berkeley, and the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) have discovered enzymes that are ramped up after mild stress during early development and continue to affect the expression of genes throughout the animal’s life. When the scientists looked at strains of inbred mice that have radically different lifespans, those with the longest lifespans had significantly higher expression of these enzymes than did the short-lived mice.
“Two of the enzymes we discovered are highly, highly correlated with lifespan; it is the biggest genetic correlation that has ever been found for lifespan in mice, and they’re both naturally occurring variants,” said Andrew Dillin, a UC Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology. “Based on what we see in worms, boosting these enzymes could reprogram your metabolism to create better health, with a possible side effect of altering lifespan.”
Details of the work, which appeared online April 29 in the journal Cell, are presented in a pair of papers. One paper (“Two Conserved Histone Demethylases Regulate Mitochondrial Stress-Induced Longevity”) resulted from an effort led by Dillin and the EPFL’s Johan Auwerx. The other paper (“Mitochondrial Stress Induces Chromatin Reorganization to Promote Longevity and UPRmt”) resulted from an effort led by Dillin and his UC Berkeley colleague Barbara Meyer.
According to these papers, mitochondrial stress activates enzymes in the brain that affect DNA folding, exposing a segment of DNA that contains the 1500 genes involved in the work of the mitochondria. A second set of enzymes then tags these genes, affecting their activation for much or all of the lifetime of the animal and causing permanent changes in how the mitochondria generates energy.
The first set of enzymes—methylases, in particular LIN-65—add methyl groups to the DNA, which can silence promoters and thus suppress gene expression. By also opening up the mitochondrial genes, these methylases set the stage for the second set of enzymes—demethylases, in this case jmjd-1.2 and jmjd-3.1—to ramp up transcription of the mitochondrial genes. When the researchers artificially increased production of the demethylases in worms, all the worms lived longer, a result identical to what is observed after mitochondrial stress.
“By changing the epigenetic state, these enzymes are able to switch genes on and off,” Dillin noted. This happens only in the brain of the worm, however, in areas that sense hunger or satiety. “These genes are expressed in neurons that are sensing the nutritional status of the animal, and these signals emanate out to the periphery to change peripheral metabolism,” he continued.
When the scientists profiled enzymes in short- and long-lived mice, they found upregulation of these genes in the brains of long-lived mice, but not in other tissues or in the brains of short-lived mice. “These genes are expressed in the hypothalamus, exactly where, when you eat, the signals are generated that tell you that you are full. And when you are hungry, signals in that region tell you to go and eat,” Dillin explained said. “These genes are all involved in peripheral feedback.”
Among the mitochondrial genes activated by these enzymes are those involved in the body’s response to proteins that unfold, which is a sign of stress. Increased activity of the proteins that refold other proteins is another hallmark of longer life.
These observations suggest that the reversal of aging by epigenetic enzymes could also take place in humans.
“It seems that, while extreme metabolic stress can lead to problems later in life, mild stress early in development says to the body, ‘Whoa, things are a little bit off-kilter here, let’s try to repair this and make it better.’ These epigenetic switches keep this up for the rest of the animal’s life,” Dillin stated.
Two Conserved Histone Demethylases Regulate Mitochondrial Stress-Induced Longevity
Carsten Merkwirth6, Virginija Jovaisaite6, Jenni Durieux,…., Reuben J. Shaw, Johan Auwerx, Andrew Dillin
•H3K27 demethylases jmjd-1.2 and jmjd-3.1 are required for ETC-mediated longevity
•jmjd-1.2 and jmjd-3.1 extend lifespan and are sufficient for UPRmt activation
•UPRmt is required for increased lifespan due to jmjd-1.2 or jmjd-3.1 overexpression
•JMJD expression is correlated with UPRmt and murine lifespan in inbred BXD lines
Across eukaryotic species, mild mitochondrial stress can have beneficial effects on the lifespan of organisms. Mitochondrial dysfunction activates an unfolded protein response (UPRmt), a stress signaling mechanism designed to ensure mitochondrial homeostasis. Perturbation of mitochondria during larval development in C. elegans not only delays aging but also maintains UPRmt signaling, suggesting an epigenetic mechanism that modulates both longevity and mitochondrial proteostasis throughout life. We identify the conserved histone lysine demethylases jmjd-1.2/PHF8 and jmjd-3.1/JMJD3 as positive regulators of lifespan in response to mitochondrial dysfunction across species. Reduction of function of the demethylases potently suppresses longevity and UPRmt induction, while gain of function is sufficient to extend lifespan in a UPRmt-dependent manner. A systems genetics approach in the BXD mouse reference population further indicates conserved roles of the mammalian orthologs in longevity and UPRmt signaling. These findings illustrate an evolutionary conserved epigenetic mechanism that determines the rate of aging downstream of mitochondrial perturbations.
Mitochondrial Stress Induces Chromatin Reorganization to Promote Longevity and UPRmt
Ye Tian, Gilberto Garcia, Qian Bian, Kristan K. Steffen, Larry Joe, Suzanne Wolff, Barbara J. Meyer, Andrew Dillin
•LIN-65 accumulates in the nucleus in response to mitochondrial stress
•Mitochondrial stress-induced chromatin changes depend on MET-2 and LIN-65
•LIN-65 and DVE-1 exhibit interdependence in nuclear accumulation
•met-2 and atfs-1 act in parallel to affect mitochondrial stress-induced longevity
Organisms respond to mitochondrial stress through the upregulation of an array of protective genes, often perpetuating an early response to metabolic dysfunction across a lifetime. We find that mitochondrial stress causes widespread changes in chromatin structure through histone H3K9 di-methylation marks traditionally associated with gene silencing. Mitochondrial stress response activation requires the di-methylation of histone H3K9 through the activity of the histone methyltransferase met-2 and the nuclear co-factor lin-65. While globally the chromatin becomes silenced by these marks, remaining portions of the chromatin open up, at which point the binding of canonical stress responsive factors such as DVE-1 occurs. Thus, a metabolic stress response is established and propagated into adulthood of animals through specific epigenetic modifications that allow for selective gene expression and lifespan extension
Siddharta Mukherjee’s Writing Career Just Got Dealt a Sucker Punch
Siddharha Mukherjee won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize in non-fiction for his book, The Emperor of All Maladies. The book has received widespread acclaim among lay audience, physicians, and scientists alike. Last year the book was turned into a special PBS series. But, according to a slew of scientists, we should all be skeptical of his next book scheduled to hit book shelves this month, The Gene, An Intimate History.
Publishing an article on epigenetics in the New Yorker this week–perhaps a selection from his new book–Mukherjee has waltzed into one of the most active scientific debates in all of biology: that of gene regulation, or epigenetics.
Jerry Coyne, the evolutionary biologist known for keeping journalists honest, has published a two part critique of Mukherjee’s New Yorker piece. The first part–wildly tweeted yesterday–is a list of quotes from Coyne’s colleagues and those who have written in to the New Yorker, including two Nobel prize winners, Wally Gilbert and Sidney Altman, offering some very unfriendly sentences.
Wally Gilbert: “The New Yorker article is so wildly wrong that it defies rational analysis.”
Sidney Altman: “I am not aware that there is such a thing as an epigenetic code. It is unfortunate to inflict this article, without proper scientific review, on the audience of the New Yorker.”
The second part is a thorough scientific rebuttal of the Mukherjee piece. It all serves as a great drama about one of the most contested ideas in biology and also as a cautionary tale to journalists, even experienced writers such as Mukherjee, about the dangers of wading into scientific arguments. Readers may remember that a few years ago, science writer, David Dobbs, similarly skated into the same topic with his piece, Die, Selfish Gene, Die, and which raised a similar shitstorm, much of it from Coyne.
Mukherjee’s mistake is in giving credence to only one side of a very fierce debate–that the environment causes changes in the genome which can be passed on; another kind of evolution–as though it were settled science. Either Mukherjee, a physicisan coming off from a successful book and PBS miniseries on cancer, is setting himself up as a scientist, or he has been a truly naive science reporter. If he got this chapter so wrong, what does it mean about an entire book on the gene?
Coyne quotes one of his colleagues who raised some questions about the New Yorker’s science reporting, one particular question we’ve been asking here at Mendelspod. How do we know what we know? Does science now have an edge on any other discipline for being able to create knowledge?
Coyne’s colleague is troubled by science coverage in the New Yorker, and goes so far as to write that the New Yorker has been waging a “war on behalf of cultural critics and literary intellectuals against scientists and technologists.”
From my experience, it’s not quite that tidy. First of all, the New Yorker is the best writing I read each week. Period. Second, I haven’t found their science writing to have the slant claimed in the quote above. For example, most other mainstream outlets–including the New York Times with the Amy Harmon pieces–have given the anti-GMO crowd an equal say in the mistaken search for a “balance” on whether GMOs are harmful. (Remember John Stewart’s criticism of Fox News? That they give a false equivalent between two sides even when there is no equivalent on the other side?)
But the New Yorker has not fallen into this trap on GMOs and most of their pieces on the topic–mainly by Michael Specter–have been decidedly pro science and therefore decided pro GMO.
So what led Mukherjee to play scientist as well as journalist? There’s no question about whether I enjoy his prose. His writing beautifully whisks me away so that I don’t feel that I’m really working to understand. There is a poetic complexity that constantly brings different threads effortlessly together, weaving them into the same light. At one point he uses the metaphor of a web for the genome, with the epigenome being the stuff that sticks to the web. He borrows the metaphor from the Hindu notion of “being”, or jaal.
“Genes form the threads of the web; the detritus that adheres to it transforms every web into a singular being.”
There have been a few writers on Twitter defending Mukherjee’s piece. Tech Review’s Antonio Regalado called Coyne and his colleagues “tedious literalists” who have an “issue with epigenetic poetry.”
At his best, Mukherjee can take us down the sweet alleys of his metaphors and family stories with a new curiosity for the scientific truth. He can hold a mirror up to scientists, or put the spotlight on their work. At their worst, Coyne and his scientific colleagues can reek of a fear of language and therefore metaphor. The always outspoken scientist and author, Richard Dawkins, who made his name by personifying the gene, was quick to personify epigentics in a tweet: “It’s high time the 15 minutes of underserved fame for “epigenetics” came to an overdue end.” Dawkins is that rare scientist who has consistently been as comfortable with rhetoric and language as he is with data.
Hats off to Coyne who reminds us that a metaphor–however lovely–does not some science make. If Mukherjee wants to play scientist, let him create and gather data. If it’s the role of science journalist he wants, let him collect all the science he can before he begins to pour it into his poetry.
Same but Different
How epigenetics can blur the line between nature and nurture.
The author’s mother (right) and her twin are a study in difference and identity. CREDIT: PHOTOGRAPH BY DAYANITA SINGH FOR THE NEW YORKER
October 6, 1942, my mother was born twice in Delhi. Bulu, her identical twin, came first, placid and beautiful. My mother, Tulu, emerged several minutes later, squirming and squalling. The midwife must have known enough about infants to recognize that the beautiful are often the damned: the quiet twin, on the edge of listlessness, was severely undernourished and had to be swaddled in blankets and revived.
The first few days of my aunt’s life were the most tenuous. She could not suckle at the breast, the story runs, and there were no infant bottles to be found in Delhi in the forties, so she was fed through a cotton wick dipped in milk, and then from a cowrie shell shaped like a spoon. When the breast milk began to run dry, at seven months, my mother was quickly weaned so that her sister could have the last remnants.
Tulu and Bulu grew up looking strikingly similar: they had the same freckled skin, almond-shaped face, and high cheekbones, unusual among Bengalis, and a slight downward tilt of the outer edge of the eye, something that Italian painters used to make Madonnas exude a mysterious empathy. They shared an inner language, as so often happens with twins; they had jokes that only the other twin understood. They even smelled the same: when I was four or five and Bulu came to visit us, my mother, in a bait-and-switch trick that amused her endlessly, would send her sister to put me to bed; eventually, searching in the half-light for identity and difference—for the precise map of freckles on her face—I would realize that I had been fooled.
But the differences were striking, too. My mother was boisterous. She had a mercurial temper that rose fast and died suddenly, like a gust of wind in a tunnel. Bulu was physically timid yet intellectually more adventurous. Her mind was more agile, her tongue sharper, her wit more lancing. Tulu was gregarious. She made friends easily. She was impervious to insults. Bulu was reserved, quieter, and more brittle. Tulu liked theatre and dancing. Bulu was a poet, a writer, a dreamer.
….. more
Why are identical twins alike? In the late nineteen-seventies, a team of scientists in Minnesota set out to determine how much these similarities arose from genes, rather than environments—from “nature,” rather than “nurture.” Scouring thousands of adoption records and news clips, the researchers gleaned a rare cohort of fifty-six identical twins who had been separated at birth. Reared in different families and different cities, often in vastly dissimilar circumstances, these twins shared only their genomes. Yet on tests designed to measure personality, attitudes, temperaments, and anxieties, they converged astonishingly. Social and political attitudes were powerfully correlated: liberals clustered with liberals, and orthodoxy was twinned with orthodoxy. The same went for religiosity (or its absence), even for the ability to be transported by an aesthetic experience. Two brothers, separated by geographic and economic continents, might be brought to tears by the same Chopin nocturne, as if responding to some subtle, common chord struck by their genomes.
One pair of twins both suffered crippling migraines, owned dogs that they had named Toy, married women named Linda, and had sons named James Allan (although one spelled the middle name with a single “l”). Another pair—one brought up Jewish, in Trinidad, and the other Catholic, in Nazi Germany, where he joined the Hitler Youth—wore blue shirts with epaulets and four pockets, and shared peculiar obsessive behaviors, such as flushing the toilet before using it. Both had invented fake sneezes to diffuse tense moments. Two sisters—separated long before the development of language—had invented the same word to describe the way they scrunched up their noses: “squidging.” Another pair confessed that they had been haunted by nightmares of being suffocated by various metallic objects—doorknobs, fishhooks, and the like.
The Minnesota twin study raised questions about the depth and pervasiveness of qualities specified by genes: Where in the genome, exactly, might one find the locus of recurrent nightmares or of fake sneezes? Yet it provoked an equally puzzling converse question: Why are identical twins different? Because, you might answer, fate impinges differently on their bodies. One twin falls down the crumbling stairs of her Calcutta house and breaks her ankle; the other scalds her thigh on a tipped cup of coffee in a European station. Each acquires the wounds, calluses, and memories of chance and fate. But how are these changes recorded, so that they persist over the years? We know that the genome can manufacture identity; the trickier question is how it gives rise to difference.
….. more
But what turns those genes on and off, and keeps them turned on or off? Why doesn’t a liver cell wake up one morning and find itself transformed into a neuron? Allis unpacked the problem further: suppose he could find an organism with two distinct sets of genes—an active set and an inactive set—between which it regularly toggled. If he could identify the molecular switches that maintain one state, or toggle between the two states, he might be able to identify the mechanism responsible for cellular memory. “What I really needed, then, was a cell with these properties,” he recalled when we spoke at his office a few weeks ago. “Two sets of genes, turned ‘on’ or ‘off’ by some signal.”
more…
“Histones had been known as part of the inner scaffold for DNA for decades,” Allis went on. “But most biologists thought of these proteins merely as packaging, or stuffing, for genes.” When Allis gave scientific seminars in the early nineties, he recalled, skeptics asked him why he was so obsessed with the packing material, the stuff in between the DNA. …. A skein of silk tangled into a ball has very different properties from that same skein extended; might the coiling or uncoiling of DNA change the activity of genes?
In 1996, Allis and his research group deepened this theory with a seminal discovery. “We became interested in the process of histone modification,” he said. “What is the signal that changes the structure of the histone so that DNA can be packed into such radically different states? We finally found a protein that makes a specific chemical change in the histone, possibly forcing the DNA coil to open. And when we studied the properties of this protein it became quite clear that it was also changing the activity of genes.” The coils of DNA seemed to open and close in response to histone modifications—inhaling, exhaling, inhaling, like life.
Allis walked me to his lab, a fluorescent-lit space overlooking the East River, divided by wide, polished-stone benches. A mechanical stirrer, whirring in a corner, clinked on the edge of a glass beaker. “Two features of histone modifications are notable,” Allis said. “First, changing histones can change the activity of a gene without affecting the sequence of the DNA.” It is, in short, formally epi-genetic, just as Waddington had imagined. “And, second, the histone modifications are passed from a parent cell to its daughter cells when cells divide. A cell can thus record ‘memory,’ and not just for itself but for all its daughter cells.”
…..
The New Yorker screws up big time with science: researchers criticize the Mukherjee piece on epigenetics
Abstract: This is a two part-post about a science piece on gene regulation that just appeared in the New Yorker. Today I give quotes from scientists criticizing that piece; tomorrow I’ll present a semi-formal critique of the piece by two experts in the field.
esterday I gave readers an assignment: read the new New Yorkerpiece by Siddhartha Mukherjee about epigenetics. The piece, called “Same but different” (subtitle: “How epigenetics can blur the line between nature and nurture”) was brought to my attention by two readers, both of whom praised it. Mukherjee, a physician, is well known for writing the Pulitzer-Prize-winning book (2011) The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. (I haven’t read it yet, but it’s on my list.) Mukherjee has a new book that will be published in May: The Gene: An Intimate History. As I haven’t seen it, the New Yorker piece may be an excerpt from this book.
Everyone I know who has read The Emperor of All Maladies gives it high praise. I wish I could say the same for Mukherjee’s New Yorker piece. When I read it at the behest of the two readers, I found his analysis of gene regulation incomplete and superficial. Although I’m not an expert in that area, I knew that there was a lot of evidence that regulatory proteins called “transcription factors”, and not “epigenetic markers” (see discussion of this term tomorrow) or modified histones—the factors emphasized by Mukherjee—played hugely important roles in gene regulation. The speculations at the end of the piece about “Lamarckian evolution” via environmentally induced epigenetic changes in the genome were also unfounded, for we have no evidence for that kind of adaptive evolution. Mukherjee does, however, mention that lack of evidence, though I wish he’d done so more strongly given that environmental modification of DNA bases is constantly touted as an important and neglected factor in evolution.
Unbeknownst to me, there was a bit of a kerfuffle going on in the community of scientists who study gene regulation, with many of them finding serious mistakes and omissions in Mukherjee’s piece. There appears to have been some back-and-forth emailing among them, and several wrote letters to the New Yorker, urging them to correct the misconceptions, omissions, and scientific errors in “Same but different.” As I understand it, both Mukherjee and the New Yorker simply batted these criticisms away, and, as far as I know, will not publish any corrections. So today and tomorrow I’ll present the criticisms here, just so they’ll be on the record.
Because Mukherjee writes very well, and because even educated laypeople won’t know the story of gene regulation revealed over the last few decades, they may not see the big lacunae in his piece. It is, then, important to set matters straight, for at least we should know what science has told us about how genes are turned on and off. The criticism of Mukherjee’s piece, coming from scientists who really are experts in gene regulation, shows a lack of care on the part of Mukherjee and theNew Yorker: both a superficial and misleading treatment of the state of the science, and a failure of the magazine to properly vet this piece (I have no idea whether they had it “refereed” not just by editors but by scientists not mentioned in the piece).
Let me add one thing about science and the New Yorker. I believe I’ve said this before, but the way the New Yorker treats science is symptomatic of the “two cultures” problem. This is summarized in an email sent me a while back by a colleague, which I quote with permission:
The New Yorker is fine with science that either serves a literary purpose (doctors’ portraits of interesting patients) or a political purpose (environmental writing with its implicit critique of modern technology and capitalism). But the subtext of most of its coverage (there are exceptions) is that scientists are just a self-interested tribe with their own narrative and no claim to finding the truth, and that science must concede the supremacy of literary culture when it comes to anything human, and never try to submit human affairs to quantification or consilience with biology. Because the magazine is undoubtedly sophisticated in its writing and editing they don’t flaunt their postmodernism or their literary-intellectual proprietariness, but once you notice it you can make sense of a lot of their material.
. . . Obviously there are exceptions – Atul Gawande is consistently superb – but as soon as you notice it, their guild war on behalf of cultural critics and literary intellectuals against scientists, technologists, and analytic scholars becomes apparent.
…. more
Researchers criticize the Mukherjee piece on epigenetics: Part 2
Trigger warning: Long science post!
Yesterday I provided a bunch of scientists’ reactions—and these were big names in the field of gene regulation—to Siddhartha Mukherjee’s ill-informed piece in The New Yorker, “Same but different” (subtitle: “How epigenetics can blur the line between nature and nurture”). Today, in part 2, I provide a sentence-by-sentence analysis and reaction by two renowned researchers in that area. We’ll start with a set of definitions (provided by the authors) that we need to understand the debate, and then proceed to the critique.
Let me add one thing to avoid confusion: everything below the line, including the definition (except for my one comment at the end) was written by Ptashne and Greally.
by Mark Ptashne and John Greally
Introduction
Ptashne is The Ludwig Professor of Molecular Biology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He wrote A Genetic Switch, now in its third edition, which describes the principles of gene regulation and the workings of a ‘switch’; and, with Alex Gann, Genes and Signals, which extends these principles and ideas to higher organisms and to other cellular processes as well. John Greally is the Director of the Center for Epigenomics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
The New Yorker (May 2, 2016) published an article entitled “Same But Different” written by Siddhartha Mukherjee. As readers will have gathered from the letters posted yesterday, there is a concern that the article is misleading, especially for a non-scientific audience. The issue concerns our current understanding of “gene regulation” and how that understanding has been arrived at.
First some definitions/concepts:
Gene regulation refers to the “turning on and off of genes”. The primary event in turning a gene “on” is to transcribe (copy) it into messenger RNA (mRNA). That mRNA is then decoded, usually, into a specific protein. Genes are transcribed by the enzyme called RNA polymerase.
Development: the process in which a fertilized egg (e.g., a human egg) divides many times and eventually forms an organism. During this process, many of the roughly 23,000 genes of a human are turned “on” or “off” in different combinations, at different times and places in the developing organism. The process produces many different cell types in different organs (e.g. liver and brain), but all retain the original set of genes.
Transcription factors: proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences near specific genes and turn transcription of those genes on and off. A transcriptional ‘activator’, for example, bears two surfaces: one binds a specific sequence in DNA, and the other binds to, and thereby recruits to the gene, protein complexes that include RNA polymerase. It is widely acknowledged that the identity of a cell in the body depends on the array of transcription factors present in the cell, and the cell’s history. RNA molecules can also recognize specific genomic sequences, and they too sometimes work as regulators. Neither transcription factors nor these kinds of RNA molecules – the fundamental regulators of gene expression and development – are mentioned in the New Yorker article.
Signals: these come in many forms (small molecules like estrogen, larger molecules (often proteins such as cytokines) that determine the ability of transcription factors to work. For example, estrogen binds directly to a transcription factor (the estrogen receptor) and, by changing its shape, permits it to bind DNA and activate transcription.
“Memory”: a dividing cell can (often does) produce daughters that are identical, and that express identical genes as does the mother cell. This occurs because the transcription factors present in the mother cell are passively transmitted to the daughters as the cell divides, and they go to work in their new contexts as before. To make two different daughters, the cell must distribute its transcription factors asymmetrically.
PositiveFeedback: An activator can maintain its own expression by positive feedback. This requires, simply, that a copy of the DNA sequence to which the activator binds is present near its own gene. Expression of the activator then becomes self-perpetuating. The activator (of which there now are many copies in the cell) activates other target genes as it maintains its own expression. This kind of ‘memory circuit’, first described in bacteria, is found in higher organisms as well. Positive feedback can explain how a fully differentiated cell (that is, a cell that has reached its developmental endpoint) maintains its identity.
Nucleosomes: DNA in higher organisms (eukaryotes) is wrapped, like beads on a string, around certain proteins (called histones), to form nucleosomes. The histones are subject to enzymatic modifications: e.g., acetyl, methyl, phosphate, etc. groups can be added to these structures. In bacteria there are no nucleosomes, and the DNA is more or less ‘naked’.
“Epigenetic modifications”: please don’t worry about the word ”epigenetic”; it is misused in any case. What Mukherjee refers to by this term are the histone modifications mentioned above, and a modification to DNA itself: the addition of methyl groups. Keep in mind that the organisms that have taught us the most about development – flies (Drosophila) and worms (C. elegans)—do not have the enzymes required for DNA methylation. That does not mean that DNA methylation cannot do interesting things in humans, for example, but it is obviously not at the heart of gene regulation.
Specificity Development requires the highly specific sequential turning on and off of sets of genes. Transcription factors and RNA supply this specificity, but enzymes that impart modifications to histones cannot: every nucleosome (and hence every gene) appears the same to the enzyme. Thus such enzymes cannot pick out particular nucleosomes associated with particular genes to modify. Histone modifications might be imagined to convey ‘memory’ as cells divide – but there are no convincing indications that this happens, nor are there molecular models that might explain why they would have the imputed effects.
Analysis and critique of Mukherjee’s article
The picture we have just sketched has taken the combined efforts of many scientists over 50 years to develop. So what, then, is the problem with the New Yorker article?
There are two: first, the picture we have just sketched, emphasizing the primary role of transcription factors and RNA, is absent. Second, that picture is replaced by highly dubious speculations, some of which don’t make sense, and none of which has been shown to work as imagined in the article.
(Quotes from the Mukherjee article are indented and in plain text; they are followed by comments, flush left and in bold, by Ptashne and Greally.)
In 1978, having obtained a Ph.D. in biology at Indiana University, Allis began to tackle a problem that had long troubled geneticists and cell biologists: if all the cells in the body have the same genome, how does one become a nerve cell, say, and another a blood cell, which looks and functions very differently?
The problems referred to were recognized long before 1978. In fact, these were exactly the problems that the great French scientists François Jacob and Jacques Monod took on in the 1950s-60s. In a series of brilliant experiments, Jacob and Monod showed that in bacteria, certain genes encode products that regulate (turn on and off) specific other genes. Those regulatory molecules turned out to be proteins, some of which respond to signals from the environment. Much of the story of modern biology has been figuring out how these proteins – in bacteria and in higher organisms – bind to and regulate specific genes. Of note is that in higher organisms, the regulatory proteins look and act like those in bacteria, despite the fact that eukaryotic DNA is wrapped in nucleosomes whereas bacterial DNA is not. We have also learned that certain RNA molecules can play a regulatory role, a phenomenon made possible by the fact that RNA molecules, like regulatory proteins, can recognize specific genomic sequences.
In the nineteen-forties, Conrad Waddington, an English embryologist, had proposed an ingenious answer: cells acquired their identities just as humans do—by letting nurture (environmental signals) modify nature (genes). For that to happen, Waddington concluded, an additional layer of information must exist within a cell—a layer that hovered, ghostlike, above the genome. This layer would carry the “memory” of the cell, recording its past and establishing its future, marking its identity and its destiny but permitting that identity to be changed, if needed. He termed the phenomenon “epigenetics”—“above genetics.”
This description greatly misrepresents the original concept. Waddington argued that development proceeds not by the loss (or gain) of genes, which would be a “genetic” process, but rather that some genes would be selectively expressed in specific and complex cellular patterns as development proceeds. He referred to this intersection of embryology (then called “epigenesis”) and genetics as “epigenetic”.We now understand that regulatory proteins work in combinations to turn on and off genes, including their own genes, and that sometimes the regulatory proteins respond to signals sent by other cells. It should be emphasized that Waddington never proposed any “ghost-like” layer of additional information hovering above the gene. This is a later misinterpretation of a literal translation of the term epigenetics, with “epi-“ meaning “above/upon” the genetic information encoded in DNA sequence. Unfortunately, this new and pervasive definition encompasses all of transcriptional regulation and is of no practical value.
…..more
By 2000, Allis and his colleagues around the world had identified a gamut of proteins that could modify histones, and so modulate the activity of genes. Other systems, too, that could scratch different kinds of code on the genome were identified (some of these discoveries predating the identification of histone modifications). One involved the addition of a chemical side chain, called a methyl group, to DNA. The methyl groups hang off the DNA string like Christmas ornaments, and specific proteins add and remove the ornaments, in effect “decorating” the genome. The most heavily methylated parts of the genome tend to be dampened in their activity.
It is true that enzymes that modify histones have been found—lots of them. A striking problem is that, after all this time, it is not at all clear what the vast majority of these modifications do. When these enzymatic activities are eliminated by mutation of their active sites (a task substantially easier to accomplish in yeast than in higher organisms) they mostly have little or no effect on transcription. It is not even clear that histones are the biologically relevant substrates of most of these enzymes.
In the ensuing decade, Allis wrote enormous, magisterial papers in which a rich cast of histone-modifying proteins appear and reappear through various roles, mapping out a hatchwork of complexity. . . These protein systems, overlaying information on the genome, interacted with one another, reinforcing or attenuating their signals. Together, they generated the bewildering intricacy necessary for a cell to build a constellation of other cells out of the same genes, and for the cells to add “memories” to their genomes and transmit these memories to their progeny. “There’s an epigenetic code, just like there’s a genetic code,” Allis said. “There are codes to make parts of the genome more active, and codes to make them inactive.”
By ‘epigenetic code’ the author seems to mean specific arrays of nucleosome modifications, imparted over time and cell divisions, marking genes for expression. This idea has been tested in many experiments and has been found not to hold.
….. and more
Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP
I hope that this piece brings greater clarity to the discussion. I have heard the use of the term “epigenetics” for over a decade. The term was never so clear. I think that the New Yorker article was a reasonable article for the intended audience. It was not intended to clarify debates about a mechanism for epigenetic based changes in evolutionary science. I think it actually punctures the “classic model” of the cell depending only on double stranded DNA and transcription, which deflates our concept of the living cell. The concept of epigenetics was never really formulated as far as I have seen, and I have done serious work in enzymology and proteins at a time that we did not have the technology that exists today. I have considered with the critics that protein folding, protein misfolding, protein interactions with proximity of polar and nonpolar groups, and the regulatory role of microRNAs that are not involved in translation, and the evolving concept of what is “dark (noncoding) DNA” lend credence to the complexity of this discussion. Even more interesting is the fact that enzymes (and isoforms of enzymes) have a huge role in cellular metabolic differences and in the function of metabolic pathways. What is less understood is the extremely fast reactions involved in these cellular reactions. These reactions are in my view critical drivers. This is brought out by Erwin Schroedinger in the book What is Life? which infers that there can be no mathematical expression of life processes.
The field of cancer immunotherapy is in its infancy but has already led to a major shift in the treatment of cancer – and this is only the beginning
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the US, accounting for almost a quarter of US deaths.1 The American Cancer Society estimates the total worldwide economic impact of cancer at $900 billion annually.2 Until recently, treatments largely relied on nonspecific toxic compounds that showed limited success. But treatment paradigms are beginning to change and an old observation about tumors and the immune system may be responsible for a new wave of cancer treatments.
Using the immune system to regulate cancer progression traces its roots back to the 1890s when William B. Coley observed that bacterial infection often coincided with cancer regression. Coley developed the theory that post-surgical infections had helped patients to recover better from their cancer by provoking an immune response. He later reported the successfully creation of a filtered mixture of bacteria and bacterial lysates to treat tumors.3 The field progressed little over the following century until the comparatively recent explosion of research which has identified the mechanisms by which cancer cells evade detection by the immune system. Armed with this knowledge, researchers have identified several protein targets, most notably Programmed Cell Death-1 (PD-1)4 and Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4)5, and more importantly, antibodies that act on these targets resulting in the activation of the immune system towards the targeting of cancer cells.
These findings have yielded unprecedented success in the treatment of certain cancers and ushered in the era of cancer immunotherapy.6 However, several cancers have proven refractory to PD-1 and CTLA-4 targeted therapies. For these diseases new classes of targets and new mechanisms must be identified. 7
FIGURE 2: Components of the Immune System with targets for Cancer Immunotherapy
Identifying these new targets is arguably the most important step in the multimillion dollar drug discovery process. Fewer than 1 in 10 compounds that enter clinical trials becomes a medicine.8 Most fail because they are not effective against the disease they are designed to combat.9 Often these failures can be traced back to not selecting the right target to drug.10
To address this challenge Thomson Reuters analysts are applying knowledge based approaches and scouting biological pathways for potential new targets for immune based therapies for cancer. Our knowledge comes from a combination of retrospective analysis of ongoing development programs coupled with information extracted from the literature. We use this evidence to better understand the role of the immune system in fighting cancer.
Scouting known targets for cancer immunotherapy and interrogating the regulators of these targets is one method to identify new potential targets. As an example we researched PD-1, the well-known checkpoint protein mentioned above. Analysis of the known transcriptional regulators of PD-1 highlighted that the majority of PD-1 expression is centered on activation of the JAK/STAT pathway and that targeting these proteins may represent a novel way to modulate the activity of PD-1. In addition, we uncovered interesting biomarkers for patient stratification or combination drug targets such as IFN-, NOTCH1, and the STATs.
FIGURE 4: Signaling Pathways leading to the expression of PD-1
Novel Targets for New Approaches
For novel targets we performed analysis of publically available gene sets of cancer patients to identify differentially regulated genes. Interrogating the differentially expressed genes and superimposing these onto proprietary canonical pathway maps for immune response we are able to identify several targets that can serve as starting points for immunotherapy drug discovery, biomarkers for disease progression, and for stratifying patients for clinical trials.
The field of cancer immunotherapy is in its infancy but has already led to a shift in the treatment of cancer. Instead of treating the cancer, researchers are treating the immune system which in turn specifically targets only the cancer. And that is just the beginning. The knowledge gained from this research can be applied to diseases other than cancer, ushering in a new era of immunotherapy. Not a bad outcome even if it took over 100 years to come about.
For more detail on this topic, download the slide presentation given by author Richard K. Harrison, Thomson Reuters Chief Scientific Officer, at the Molecular Med Tri-Con 2016: “Knowledge Based Approaches to New Targets in Cancer Immunotherapy.”
References:
1. Globacan, International Agency for Research on Cancer; “Globocan 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. (2012).
2. American Cancer Society Cancer Facts and Figures. (2013).
3. Coley WB, The Treatment of Malignant Tumors By Repeated Inoculations of Erysipelas: With A Report of Ten Original Cases.
The American Journal of Medical Sciences 10, 487-511 (1893).
4. H. Nishimura, M. Nose, H. Hiai, N. Minato, T. Honjo, Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying
immunoreceptor. Immunity 11, 141-151 (1999).
5. K. M. Lee et al., Molecular basis of T cell inactivation by CTLA-4. Science 282, 2263-2266 (1998).
6. A. Swaika, W. A. Hammond, R. W. Joseph, Current state of anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 agents in cancer therapy. Mol. Immunol. 67, 4-17 (2015).
7. A. C. Anderson, Tim-3: an emerging target in the cancer immunotherapy landscape. Cancer Immunol. Res 2, 393-398 (2014).
8. J. Arrowsmith, A decade of change. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 11, 17-18 (2012).
9. J. Arrowsmith, P. Miller, Trial watch: phase II and phase III attrition rates 2011-2012. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 12, 569 (2013).
10. P. Morgan et al., Can the flow of medicines be improved? Fundamental pharmacokinetic and pharmacological principles toward improving Phase II survival.
Drug Discov.Today 17, 419-424 (2012).
Within immuno-oncology, checkpoint inhibitors and therapeutic cancer vaccines exhibit unique trends and challenges
Immunotherapy trials comprise more than one third of the current clinical oncology space. As innovators race to market, challenges inherent in immuno-oncology (I/O) are being met. Predictive and prognostic biomarkers have become notoriously difficult to pinpoint and regulatory bodies are struggling to maintain pace with the burgeoning field.
In taking a closer look at the 2,500 active I/O clinical trials in Cortellis Clinical Trials Intelligence, there are two classes experiencing interesting trends, each with their unique challenges. Therapeutic cancer vaccine trials have seen a shift in sponsors while steadily decreasing in number. Checkpoint inhibitors, meanwhile, have been rapidly gaining momentum.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
Specialized biotech companies and research institutions have taken on the challenge of therapeutic cancer vaccine development. Following Dendreon’s success in 2010 with Provenge (sipuleucel-T), the only therapeutic cancer vaccine approved by the FDA thus far, drug developers are employing diverse strategies to effectively introduce cancer vaccines to immuno-compromised patients while mitigating adverse or unintended effects. Although the majority of therapeutic cancer vaccine studies are in the early stages, approximately 10 percent are those that have progressed to late-stage trials. These numbers indicate both an interest in the class as well as modest success with trial candidates.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, checkpoint inhibitor trials are exhibiting a rapid-fire growth pattern and tremendous success. Since 2010, they have experienced a twenty-fold increase in the number of commercially relevant trials as compared to those started in 2015. Anti-CTLA-4 trials comprise a quarter of the current space, while target newcomers, PD-1 and PD-L1, make up the remainder, with PD-1 being studied in more than half of current trials.
PD-1 is a receptor on T-cells and binds ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2 to prevent T-cell activation. Upregulation of these proteins causes cancer cells to go unnoticed by the immune system. Inhibiting this checkpoint, however, lifts the veil, allowing the immune system to launch an attack. Both big pharma and biotech companies are active in the space and are taking on trials at almost double the rate of therapeutic vaccines.
BMS, following up on their success with Yervoy (CTLA-4) and Opdivo (PD-1), are at the top of the space, followed by Merck (Keytruda, PD-1) and Roche. Early and late phase trials are split down the middle indicating both interest in the space and successful progression to phase III trials. Until recently, melanoma has been the top indication in the space; however it has since been surpassed by lung cancer.
Advanced metastatic cancers, those where other treatments have failed, remain the top patient segments in checkpoint inhibitor trials. Challenges in this space lie in identifying predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Correlating response rate to the PD-L1 biomarker, which is currently seen in 39 percent of checkpoint inhibitor trials measuring biomarkers, is not always possible.
Conclusion
Immuno-oncology is a highly marketable and dynamic space currently led by checkpoint inhibitors. However, as niches become saturated, developers must look to identify novel approaches. Immunotherapy and cross-class combinations are proving to be successful, and the recent approval of Amgen’s oncolytic virus (T-vec) for inoperable melanoma is giving hope that there are opportunities beyond T-cells. Our immune system is a complex defense structure full of cells ready to take on the fight against cancer – they just need the right orders.
When dosed with an immunotherapy, adaptive and innate immune systems are activated, better allowing them to recognize disease cells in the body. However, the immune system also becomes more sensitive to self, potentially causing cytokine storm, macrophage activation syndrome, or autoimmunity. On Monday, April 25, at the PEGS Summit in Boston, there will be a special session devoted to Cytokine Storm: Prediction, Diagnosis, and Management which will include the below presentations. Register for a Premium Package to maximize your savings and learning opportunities while gaining access to the entire Immunotherapy Stream.
Cytokine Storm: Prediction, Diagnosis, and Management
Cytokine Storm Following CAR-T Cell Therapy: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Diagnosis and Symptom Management
Chrystal Louis, Ph.D., Co-Director, Neuroblastoma Program, Texas Children’s Hospital; Assistant Professor, Pediatrics, Section of Hematology-Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine
Chimeric antigen receptor (CARs) positive T cells combines the specificity and anti-tumor effects of monoclonal antibodies with the direct cytotoxicity and long-term persistence of T cells. However, modifications designed to improve the affinity and anti-tumor activity of CARs increases the likelihood of on- and off-target toxicity secondary to low level antigenic expression on normal tissues. Toxicity associated with cytokine storm and macrophage activation syndrome can be life-threatening if not quickly identified and requires interdisciplinary communication and teamwork to successfully manage the symptoms.
Biomarkers Accurately Predict Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) after Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cell Therapy for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)
Simon Lacey, Ph.D., Director, Translational and Correlative Studies Laboratory, Product Development and Correlative Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
CAR T cells with anti-CD19 specificity have demonstrated remission rates as high as 90% in ALL patients treated with CTL019 (Maude et al., NEJM 2014), but cytokine release syndrome (CRS) can be a complication. We studied 43 cytokines, chemokines, and soluble receptors in 51 ALL patients treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells. Biomarkers associated with severe CRS and predictive during the first 3 days after infusion of subsequent CRS4-5 compared to CRS0-3 were identified.
Managing Receptor-Engineered T Cell Cytokine Storms: Facts, Fabulations, Future Progress
Christopher A. Klebanoff, M.D., Assistant Clinical Investigator, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute
Adoptive transfer of receptor-engineered T cells targeting tumor-associated antigens can mediate durable complete responses in patients with refractory solid and hematologic malignancies. In some cases, infusion of engineered T cells is associated with a spectrum of toxicities attributed to an exuberant release of cytokines. Dissemination of this promising treatment modality beyond specialized academic medical centers will require detailed understanding of both the pathogenesis and medical management of cell-related toxicities.
Christopher J. Lynch, Ph.D., has been named the new director of the Office of Nutrition Research (ONR) and chief of the Nutrition Research Branch within the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Lynch officially assumed his new roles on Feb. 21, 2016. NIDDK is part of the National Institutes of Health.
Lynch will facilitate nutrition research within NIDDK and — through ONR — across NIH, in part by forming and leading a trans-NIH strategic working group. He will also continue and extend ongoing efforts at NIDDK to collaborate widely to advance nutrition research.
“Dr. Lynch is a leader in the nutrition community and his expertise will be vital to guiding the NIH strategic plan for nutrition research,” said NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. “As NIH works to expand nutrition knowledge, Dr. Lynch’s understanding of the field will help identify information gaps and create a framework to support future discoveries to ultimately improve human health.”
NIH supports a broad range of nutrition research, including studies on the effects of nutrient and dietary intake on human growth and disease, genetic influences on human nutrition and metabolism and other scientific areas. ONR was established in August 2015 to help NIH develop a strategic plan to expand mission-specific nutrition research.
“Every day, we learn more about the links between diet and life-threatening diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, and how our gut microbiome may determine food preferences,” Lynch said. “These are exciting times for nutrition research and I’m delighted to help advance NIH-funded nutrition research.”
Lynch joins NIH after 27 years at Pennsylvania State University’s College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, most recently serving as professor and vice chair of the Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology. His research focuses on how what we eat and drink influences processes leading to obesity and type 2 diabetes. He has also investigated the relationship between antipsychotic therapy and obesity and type 2 diabetes and how gastric bypass surgery changes metabolism. Lynch also led efforts to increase nutrition education in the medical school curriculum.
“Nutrition research is a key to increasing our understanding of the causes of many diseases studied by NIDDK, including diabetes, obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, and others,” said NIDDK Director Griffin P. Rodgers, M.D. “With Dr. Lynch’s guidance, we hope to strengthen our research in nutrition, encourage innovative research through novel partnerships and help the public to better understand how nutrition influences their health.”
The NIDDK, a component of the NIH, conducts and supports research on diabetes and other endocrine and metabolic diseases; digestive diseases, nutrition and obesity; and kidney, urologic and hematologic diseases. Spanning the full spectrum of medicine and afflicting people of all ages and ethnic groups, these diseases encompass some of the most common, severe and disabling conditions affecting Americans. For more information about the NIDDK and its programs, visit www.niddk.nih.gov.
About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov
NARRATIVE:
Our laboratory is dedicated to developing cures for metabolic diseases like Obesity, Diabetes and MSUD. We have several projects:
Project 1: How Antipsychotic Drugs Exert Obesity and Metabolic Disease Side effects
Project 2: Impact of Branched Chain Amino Acid (BCAA) signaling and metabolism in obesity and diabetes.
Project 3: Adipose tissue transplant as a treatment for Maple Syrup Urine Disease.
Project 4: How Gastric Bypass Surgery Provides A Rapid Cure For Diabetes And Other Obesity Co-Morbidities Like Hypertension
Project 5: Novel Mechanism Of Action Of Cannabinoid Receptor 1 Blockers For Improvement Of Diabetes
Timeline
Klingerman CM, Stipanovic ME, Hajnal A, Lynch CJ. Acute Metabolic Effects of Olanzapine Depend on Dose and Injection Site. Dose Response. 2015 Oct-Dec; 13(4):1559325815618915.
Lynch CJ, Kimball SR, Xu Y, Salzberg AC, Kawasawa YI. Global deletion of BCATm increases expression of skeletal muscle genes associated with protein turnover. Physiol Genomics. 2015 Nov; 47(11):569-80.
Lynch CJ, Xu Y, Hajnal A, Salzberg AC, Kawasawa YI. RNA sequencing reveals a slow to fast muscle fiber type transition after olanzapine infusion in rats. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0123966.
Shin AC, Fasshauer M, Filatova N, Grundell LA, Zielinski E, Zhou JY, Scherer T, Lindtner C, White PJ, Lapworth AL, Ilkayeva O, Knippschild U, Wolf AM, Scheja L, Grove KL, Smith RD, Qian WJ, Lynch CJ, Newgard CB, Buettner C. Brain Insulin Lowers Circulating BCAA Levels by Inducing Hepatic BCAA Catabolism. Cell Metab. 2014 Nov 4; 20(5):898-909.
Olson KC, Chen G, Lynch CJ. Quantification of branched-chain keto acids in tissue by ultra fast liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal Biochem. 2013 Aug 15; 439(2):116-22.
She P, Olson KC, Kadota Y, Inukai A, Shimomura Y, Hoppel CL, Adams SH, Kawamata Y, Matsumoto H, Sakai R, Lang CH, Lynch CJ. Leucine and protein metabolism in obese Zucker rats. PLoS One. 2013; 8(3):e59443.
Lackey DE, Lynch CJ, Olson KC, Mostaedi R, Ali M, Smith WH, Karpe F, Humphreys S, Bedinger DH, Dunn TN, Thomas AP, Oort PJ, Kieffer DA, Amin R, Bettaieb A, Haj FG, Permana P, Anthony TG, Adams SH. Regulation of adipose branched-chain amino acid catabolism enzyme expression and cross-adipose amino acid flux in human obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Jun 1; 304(11):E1175-87.
Klingerman CM, Stipanovic ME, Bader M, Lynch CJ. Second-generation antipsychotics cause a rapid switch to fat oxidation that is required for survival in C57BL/6J mice. Schizophr Bull. 2014 Mar; 40(2):327-40.
Lynch CJ, Zhou Q, Shyng SL, Heal DJ, Cheetham SC, Dickinson K, Gregory P, Firnges M, Nordheim U, Goshorn S, Reiche D, Turski L, Antel J. Some cannabinoid receptor ligands and their distomers are direct-acting openers of SUR1 K(ATP) channels. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Mar 1; 302(5):E540-51.
Albaugh VL, Singareddy R, Mauger D, Lynch CJ. A double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover study of the acute metabolic effects of olanzapine in healthy volunteers. PLoS One. 2011; 6(8):e22662.
She P, Zhang Z, Marchionini D, Diaz WC, Jetton TJ, Kimball SR, Vary TC, Lang CH, Lynch CJ. Molecular characterization of skeletal muscle atrophy in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington’s disease. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Jul; 301(1):E49-61.
Zhou Y, Jetton TL, Goshorn S, Lynch CJ, She P. Transamination is required for {alpha}-ketoisocaproate but not leucine to stimulate insulin secretion. J Biol Chem. 2010 Oct 29; 285(44):33718-26.
Agostino NM, Chinchilli VM, Lynch CJ, Koszyk-Szewczyk A, Gingrich R, Sivik J, Drabick JJ. Effect of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib, sorafenib, dasatinib, and imatinib) on blood glucose levels in diabetic and nondiabetic patients in general clinical practice. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2011 Sep; 17(3):197-202.
Li J, Romestaing C, Han X, Li Y, Hao X, Wu Y, Sun C, Liu X, Jefferson LS, Xiong J, Lanoue KF, Chang Z, Lynch CJ, Wang H, Shi Y. Cardiolipin remodeling by ALCAT1 links oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction to obesity. Cell Metab. 2010 Aug 4; 12(2):154-65.
Culnan DM, Albaugh V, Sun M, Lynch CJ, Lang CH, Cooney RN. Ileal interposition improves glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity in the obese Zucker rat. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2010 Sep; 299(3):G751-60.
Lang CH, Frost RA, Bronson SK, Lynch CJ, Vary TC. Skeletal muscle protein balance in mTOR heterozygous mice in response to inflammation and leucine. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Jun; 298(6):E1283-94.
Albaugh VL, Judson JG, She P, Lang CH, Maresca KP, Joyal JL, Lynch CJ. Olanzapine promotes fat accumulation in male rats by decreasing physical activity, repartitioning energy and increasing adipose tissue lipogenesis while impairing lipolysis. Mol Psychiatry. 2011 May; 16(5):569-81.
Li P, Knabe DA, Kim SW, Lynch CJ, Hutson SM, Wu G. Lactating porcine mammary tissue catabolizes branched-chain amino acids for glutamine and aspartate synthesis. J Nutr. 2009 Aug; 139(8):1502-9.
Lu G, Sun H, She P, Youn JY, Warburton S, Ping P, Vondriska TM, Cai H, Lynch CJ, Wang Y. Protein phosphatase 2Cm is a critical regulator of branched-chain amino acid catabolism in mice and cultured cells. J Clin Invest. 2009 Jun; 119(6):1678-87.
Nairizi A, She P, Vary TC, Lynch CJ. Leucine supplementation of drinking water does not alter susceptibility to diet-induced obesity in mice. J Nutr. 2009 Apr; 139(4):715-9.
Meirelles K, Ahmed T, Culnan DM, Lynch CJ, Lang CH, Cooney RN. Mechanisms of glucose homeostasis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in the obese, insulin-resistant Zucker rat. Ann Surg. 2009 Feb; 249(2):277-85.
She P, Van Horn C, Reid T, Hutson SM, Cooney RN, Lynch CJ. Obesity-related elevations in plasma leucine are associated with alterations in enzymes involved in branched-chain amino acid metabolism. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Dec; 293(6):E1552-63.
She P, Reid TM, Bronson SK, Vary TC, Hajnal A, Lynch CJ, Hutson SM. Disruption of BCATm in mice leads to increased energy expenditure associated with the activation of a futile protein turnover cycle. Cell Metab. 2007 Sep; 6(3):181-94.
Vary TC, Anthony JC, Jefferson LS, Kimball SR, Lynch CJ. Rapamycin blunts nutrient stimulation of eIF4G, but not PKCepsilon phosphorylation, in skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jul; 293(1):E188-96.
Albaugh VL, Henry CR, Bello NT, Hajnal A, Lynch SL, Halle B, Lynch CJ. Hormonal and metabolic effects of olanzapine and clozapine related to body weight in rodents. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006 Jan; 14(1):36-51.
Vary TC, Lynch CJ. Meal feeding enhances formation of eIF4F in skeletal muscle: role of increased eIF4E availability and eIF4G phosphorylation. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Apr; 290(4):E631-42.
Vary TC, Goodman S, Kilpatrick LE, Lynch CJ. Nutrient regulation of PKCepsilon is mediated by leucine, not insulin, in skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Oct; 289(4):E684-94.
Vary TC, Lynch CJ. Biochemical approaches for nutritional support of skeletal muscle protein metabolism during sepsis. Nutr Res Rev. 2004 Jun; 17(1):77-88.
Lynch CJ, Hutson SM, Patson BJ, Vaval A, Vary TC. Tissue-specific effects of chronic dietary leucine and norleucine supplementation on protein synthesis in rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Oct; 283(4):E824-35.
Lynch CJ, Patson BJ, Anthony J, Vaval A, Jefferson LS, Vary TC. Leucine is a direct-acting nutrient signal that regulates protein synthesis in adipose tissue. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Sep; 283(3):E503-13.
Vary TC, Lynch CJ, Lang CH. Effects of chronic alcohol consumption on regulation of myocardial protein synthesis. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001 Sep; 281(3):H1242-51.
Lynch CJ, Patson BJ, Goodman SA, Trapolsi D, Kimball SR. Zinc stimulates the activity of the insulin- and nutrient-regulated protein kinase mTOR. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Jul; 281(1):E25-34.
Consumption of a protein-containing meal by a fasted animal promotes protein accretion in skeletal muscle, in part through leucine stimulation of protein synthesis and indirectly through repression of protein degradation mediated by its metabolite, α-ketoisocaproate. Mice lacking the mitochondrial branched-chain aminotransferase (BCATm/Bcat2), which interconverts leucine and α-ketoisocaproate, exhibit elevated protein turnover. Here, the transcriptomes of gastrocnemius muscle from BCATm knockout (KO) and wild-type mice were compared by next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) to identify potential adaptations associated with their persistently altered nutrient signaling. Statistically significant changes in the abundance of 1,486/∼39,010 genes were identified. Bioinformatics analysis of the RNA-Seq data indicated that pathways involved in protein synthesis [eukaryotic initiation factor (eIF)-2, mammalian target of rapamycin, eIF4, and p70S6K pathways including 40S and 60S ribosomal proteins], protein breakdown (e.g., ubiquitin mediated), and muscle degeneration (apoptosis, atrophy, myopathy, and cell death) were upregulated. Also in agreement with our previous observations, the abundance of mRNAs associated with reduced body size, glycemia, plasma insulin, and lipid signaling pathways was altered in BCATm KO mice. Consistently, genes encoding anaerobic and/or oxidative metabolism of carbohydrate, fatty acids, and branched chain amino acids were modestly but systematically reduced. Although there was no indication that muscle fiber type was different between KO and wild-type mice, a difference in the abundance of mRNAs associated with a muscular dystrophy phenotype was observed, consistent with the published exercise intolerance of these mice. The results suggest transcriptional adaptations occur in BCATm KO mice that along with altered nutrient signaling may contribute to their previously reported protein turnover, metabolic and exercise phenotypes.
RNA sequencing reveals a slow to fast muscle fiber type transition after olanzapine infusion in rats.
Second generation antipsychotics (SGAs), like olanzapine, exhibit acute metabolic side effects leading to metabolic inflexibility, hyperglycemia, adiposity and diabetes. Understanding how SGAs affect the skeletal muscle transcriptome could elucidate approaches for mitigating these side effects. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were infused intravenously with vehicle or olanzapine for 24h using a dose leading to a mild hyperglycemia. RNA-Seq was performed on gastrocnemius muscle, followed by alignment of the data with the Rat Genome Assembly 5.0. Olanzapine altered expression of 1347 out of 26407 genes. Genes encoding skeletal muscle fiber-type specific sarcomeric, ion channel, glycolytic, O2- and Ca2+-handling, TCA cycle, vascularization and lipid oxidation proteins and pathways, along with NADH shuttles and LDH isoforms were affected. Bioinformatics analyses indicate that olanzapine decreased the expression of slower and more oxidative fiber type genes (e.g., type 1), while up regulating those for the most glycolytic and least metabolically flexible, fast twitch fiber type, IIb. Protein turnover genes, necessary to bring about transition, were also up regulated. Potential upstream regulators were also identified. Olanzapine appears to be rapidly affecting the muscle transcriptome to bring about a change to a fast-glycolytic fiber type. Such fiber types are more susceptible than slow muscle to atrophy, and such transitions are observed in chronic metabolic diseases. Thus these effects could contribute to the altered body composition and metabolic disease olanzapine causes. A potential interventional strategy is implicated because aerobic exercise, in contrast to resistance exercise, can oppose such slow to fast fiber transitions.
Circulating branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) levels are elevated in obesity/diabetes and are a sensitive predictor for type 2 diabetes. Here we show in rats that insulin dose-dependently lowers plasma BCAA levels through induction of hepatic protein expression and activity of branched-chain α-keto acid dehydrogenase (BCKDH), the rate-limiting enzyme in the BCAA degradation pathway. Selective induction of hypothalamic insulin signaling in rats and genetic modulation of brain insulin receptors in mice demonstrate that brain insulin signaling is a major regulator of BCAA metabolism by inducing hepatic BCKDH. Short-term overfeeding impairs the ability of brain insulin to lower BCAAs in rats. High-fat feeding in nonhuman primates and obesity and/or diabetes in humans is associated with reduced BCKDH protein in liver. These findings support the concept that decreased hepatic BCKDH is a major cause of increased plasma BCAAs and that hypothalamic insulin resistance may account for impaired BCAA metabolism in obesity and diabetes.
Branched-chain amino acids in metabolic signalling and insulin resistance.
Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) are important nutrient signals that have direct and indirect effects. Frequently, BCAAs have been reported to mediate antiobesity effects, especially in rodent models. However, circulating levels of BCAAs tend to be increased in individuals with obesity and are associated with worse metabolic health and future insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A hypothesized mechanism linking increased levels of BCAAs and T2DM involves leucine-mediated activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), which results in uncoupling of insulin signalling at an early stage. A BCAA dysmetabolism model proposes that the accumulation of mitotoxic metabolites (and not BCAAs per se) promotes β-cell mitochondrial dysfunction, stress signalling and apoptosis associated with T2DM. Alternatively, insulin resistance might promote aminoacidaemia by increasing the protein degradation that insulin normally suppresses, and/or by eliciting an impairment of efficient BCAA oxidative metabolism in some tissues. Whether and how impaired BCAA metabolism might occur in obesity is discussed in this Review. Research on the role of individual and model-dependent differences in BCAA metabolism is needed, as several genes (BCKDHA, PPM1K, IVD and KLF15) have been designated as candidate genes for obesity and/or T2DM in humans, and distinct phenotypes of tissue-specific branched chain ketoacid dehydrogenase complex activity have been detected in animal models of obesity and T2DM.
Leucine and protein metabolism in obese Zucker rats.
Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) are circulating nutrient signals for protein accretion, however, they increase in obesity and elevations appear to be prognostic of diabetes. To understand the mechanisms whereby obesity affects BCAAs and protein metabolism, we employed metabolomics and measured rates of [1-(14)C]-leucine metabolism, tissue-specific protein synthesis and branched-chain keto-acid (BCKA) dehydrogenase complex (BCKDC) activities. Male obese Zucker rats (11-weeks old) had increased body weight (BW, 53%), liver (107%) and fat (∼300%), but lower plantaris and gastrocnemius masses (-21-24%). Plasma BCAAs and BCKAs were elevated 45-69% and ∼100%, respectively, in obese rats. Processes facilitating these rises appeared to include increased dietary intake (23%), leucine (Leu) turnover and proteolysis [35% per g fat free mass (FFM), urinary markers of proteolysis: 3-methylhistidine (183%) and 4-hydroxyproline (766%)] and decreased BCKDC per g kidney, heart, gastrocnemius and liver (-47-66%). A process disposing of circulating BCAAs, protein synthesis, was increased 23-29% by obesity in whole-body (FFM corrected), gastrocnemius and liver. Despite the observed decreases in BCKDC activities per gm tissue, rates of whole-body Leu oxidation in obese rats were 22% and 59% higher normalized to BW and FFM, respectively. Consistently, urinary concentrations of eight BCAA catabolism-derived acylcarnitines were also elevated. The unexpected increase in BCAA oxidation may be due to a substrate effect in liver. Supporting this idea, BCKAs were elevated more in liver (193-418%) than plasma or muscle, and per g losses of hepatic BCKDC activities were completely offset by increased liver mass, in contrast to other tissues. In summary, our results indicate that plasma BCKAs may represent a more sensitive metabolic signature for obesity than BCAAs. Processes supporting elevated BCAA]BCKAs in the obese Zucker rat include increased dietary intake, Leu and protein turnover along with impaired BCKDC activity. Elevated BCAAs/BCKAs may contribute to observed elevations in protein synthesis and BCAA oxidation.
Regulation of adipose branched-chain amino acid catabolism enzyme expression and cross-adipose amino acid flux in human obesity.
Elevated blood branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) are often associated with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, which might result from a reduced cellular utilization and/or incomplete BCAA oxidation. White adipose tissue (WAT) has become appreciated as a potential player in whole body BCAA metabolism. We tested if expression of the mitochondrial BCAA oxidation checkpoint, branched-chain α-ketoacid dehydrogenase (BCKD) complex, is reduced in obese WAT and regulated by metabolic signals. WAT BCKD protein (E1α subunit) was significantly reduced by 35-50% in various obesity models (fa/fa rats, db/db mice, diet-induced obese mice), and BCKD component transcripts significantly lower in subcutaneous (SC) adipocytes from obese vs. lean Pima Indians. Treatment of 3T3-L1 adipocytes or mice with peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonists increased WAT BCAA catabolism enzyme mRNAs, whereas the nonmetabolizable glucose analog 2-deoxy-d-glucose had the opposite effect. The results support the hypothesis that suboptimal insulin action and/or perturbed metabolic signals in WAT, as would be seen with insulin resistance/type 2 diabetes, could impair WAT BCAA utilization. However, cross-tissue flux studies comparing lean vs. insulin-sensitive or insulin-resistant obese subjects revealed an unexpected negligible uptake of BCAA from human abdominal SC WAT. This suggests that SC WAT may not be an important contributor to blood BCAA phenotypes associated with insulin resistance in the overnight-fasted state. mRNA abundances for BCAA catabolic enzymes were markedly reduced in omental (but not SC) WAT of obese persons with metabolic syndrome compared with weight-matched healthy obese subjects, raising the possibility that visceral WAT contributes to the BCAA metabolic phenotype of metabolically compromised individuals.
Some cannabinoid receptor ligands and their distomers are direct-acting openers of SUR1 K(ATP) channels.
Here, we examined the chronic effects of two cannabinoid receptor-1 (CB1) inverse agonists, rimonabant and ibipinabant, in hyperinsulinemic Zucker rats to determine their chronic effects on insulinemia. Rimonabant and ibipinabant (10 mg·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹) elicited body weight-independent improvements in insulinemia and glycemia during 10 wk of chronic treatment. To elucidate the mechanism of insulin lowering, acute in vivo and in vitro studies were then performed. Surprisingly, chronic treatment was not required for insulin lowering. In acute in vivo and in vitro studies, the CB1 inverse agonists exhibited acute K channel opener (KCO; e.g., diazoxide and NN414)-like effects on glucose tolerance and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS) with approximately fivefold better potency than diazoxide. Followup studies implied that these effects were inconsistent with a CB1-mediated mechanism. Thus effects of several CB1 agonists, inverse agonists, and distomers during GTTs or GSIS studies using perifused rat islets were unpredictable from their known CB1 activities. In vivo rimonabant and ibipinabant caused glucose intolerance in CB1 but not SUR1-KO mice. Electrophysiological studies indicated that, compared with diazoxide, 3 μM rimonabant and ibipinabant are partial agonists for K channel opening. Partial agonism was consistent with data from radioligand binding assays designed to detect SUR1 K(ATP) KCOs where rimonabant and ibipinabant allosterically regulated ³H-glibenclamide-specific binding in the presence of MgATP, as did diazoxide and NN414. Our findings indicate that some CB1 ligands may directly bind and allosterically regulate Kir6.2/SUR1 K(ATP) channels like other KCOs. This mechanism appears to be compatible with and may contribute to their acute and chronic effects on GSIS and insulinemia.
Transamination is required for {alpha}-ketoisocaproate but not leucine to stimulate insulin secretion.
It remains unclear how α-ketoisocaproate (KIC) and leucine are metabolized to stimulate insulin secretion. Mitochondrial BCATm (branched-chain aminotransferase) catalyzes reversible transamination of leucine and α-ketoglutarate to KIC and glutamate, the first step of leucine catabolism. We investigated the biochemical mechanisms of KIC and leucine-stimulated insulin secretion (KICSIS and LSIS, respectively) using BCATm(-/-) mice. In static incubation, BCATm disruption abolished insulin secretion by KIC, D,L-α-keto-β-methylvalerate, and α-ketocaproate without altering stimulation by glucose, leucine, or α-ketoglutarate. Similarly, during pancreas perfusions in BCATm(-/-) mice, glucose and arginine stimulated insulin release, whereas KICSIS was largely abolished. During islet perifusions, KIC and 2 mM glutamine caused robust dose-dependent insulin secretion in BCATm(+/+) not BCATm(-/-) islets, whereas LSIS was unaffected. Consistently, in contrast to BCATm(+/+) islets, the increases of the ATP concentration and NADPH/NADP(+) ratio in response to KIC were largely blunted in BCATm(-/-) islets. Compared with nontreated islets, the combination of KIC/glutamine (10/2 mM) did not influence α-ketoglutarate concentrations but caused 120 and 33% increases in malate in BCATm(+/+) and BCATm(-/-) islets, respectively. Although leucine oxidation and KIC transamination were blocked in BCATm(-/-) islets, KIC oxidation was unaltered. These data indicate that KICSIS requires transamination of KIC and glutamate to leucine and α-ketoglutarate, respectively. LSIS does not require leucine catabolism and may be through leucine activation of glutamate dehydrogenase. Thus, KICSIS and LSIS occur by enhancing the metabolism of glutamine/glutamate to α-ketoglutarate, which, in turn, is metabolized to produce the intracellular signals such as ATP and NADPH for insulin secretion.
Effect of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib, sorafenib, dasatinib, and imatinib) on blood glucose levels in diabetic and nondiabetic patients in general clinical practice.
Tyrosine kinase is a key enzyme activity utilized in many intracellular messaging pathways. Understanding the role of particular tyrosine kinases in malignancies has allowed for the design of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), which can target these enzymes and interfere with downstream signaling. TKIs have proven to be successful in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, renal cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and other malignancies. Scattered reports have suggested that these agents appear to affect blood glucose (BG). We retrospectively studied the BG concentrations in diabetic (17) and nondiabetic (61) patients treated with dasatinib (8), imatinib (39), sorafenib (23), and sunitinib (30) in our clinical practice. Mean declines of BG were dasatinib (53 mg/dL), imatinib (9 mg/dL), sorafenib (12 mg/dL), and sunitinib (14 mg/dL). All these declines in BG were statistically significant. Of note, 47% (8/17) of the patients with diabetes were able to discontinue their medications, including insulin in some patients. Only one diabetic patient developed symptomatic hypoglycemia while on sunitinib. The mechanism for the hypoglycemic effect of these drugs is unclear, but of the four agents tested, c-kit and PDGFRβ are the common target kinases. Clinicians should keep the potential hypoglycemic effects of these agents in mind; modification of hypoglycemic agents may be required in diabetic patients. These results also suggest that inhibition of a tyrosine kinase, be it c-kit, PDGFRβ or some other undefined target, may improve diabetes mellitus BG control and it deserves further study as a potential novel therapeutic option.
Cardiolipin remodeling by ALCAT1 links oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction to obesity.
Oxidative stress causes mitochondrial dysfunction and metabolic complications through unknown mechanisms. Cardiolipin (CL) is a key mitochondrial phospholipid required for oxidative phosphorylation. Oxidative damage to CL from pathological remodeling is implicated in the etiology of mitochondrial dysfunction commonly associated with diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic diseases. Here, we show that ALCAT1, a lyso-CL acyltransferase upregulated by oxidative stress and diet-induced obesity (DIO), catalyzes the synthesis of CL species that are highly sensitive to oxidative damage, leading to mitochondrial dysfunction, ROS production, and insulin resistance. These metabolic disorders were reminiscent of those observed in type 2 diabetes and were reversed by rosiglitazone treatment. Consequently, ALCAT1 deficiency prevented the onset of DIO and significantly improved mitochondrial complex I activity, lipid oxidation, and insulin signaling in ALCAT1(-/-) mice. Collectively, these findings identify a key role of ALCAT1 in regulating CL remodeling, mitochondrial dysfunction, and susceptibility to DIO.
BCATm deficiency ameliorates endotoxin-induced decrease in muscle protein synthesis and improves survival in septic mice.
Endotoxin (LPS) and sepsis decrease mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) activity in skeletal muscle, thereby reducing protein synthesis. Our study tests the hypothesis that inhibition of branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) catabolism, which elevates circulating BCAA and stimulates mTOR, will blunt the LPS-induced decrease in muscle protein synthesis. Wild-type (WT) and mitochondrial branched-chain aminotransferase (BCATm) knockout mice were studied 4 h after Escherichia coli LPS or saline. Basal skeletal muscle protein synthesis was increased in knockout mice compared with WT, and this change was associated with increased eukaryotic initiation factor (eIF)-4E binding protein-1 (4E-BP1) phosphorylation, eIF4E.eIF4G binding, 4E-BP1.raptor binding, and eIF3.raptor binding without a change in the mTOR.raptor complex in muscle. LPS decreased muscle protein synthesis in WT mice, a change associated with decreased 4E-BP1 phosphorylation as well as decreased formation of eIF4E.eIF4G, 4E-BP1.raptor, and eIF3.raptor complexes. In BCATm knockout mice given LPS, muscle protein synthesis only decreased to values found in vehicle-treated WT control mice, and this ameliorated LPS effect was associated with a coordinate increase in 4E-BP1.raptor, eIF3.raptor, and 4E-BP1 phosphorylation. Additionally, the LPS-induced increase in muscle cytokines was blunted in BCATm knockout mice, compared with WT animals. In a separate study, 7-day survival and muscle mass were increased in BCATm knockout vs. WT mice after polymicrobial peritonitis. These data suggest that elevating blood BCAA is sufficient to ameliorate the catabolic effect of LPS on skeletal muscle protein synthesis via alterations in protein-protein interactions within mTOR complex-1, and this may provide a survival advantage in response to bacterial infection.
Alcohol-induced IGF-I resistance is ameliorated in mice deficient for mitochondrial branched-chain aminotransferase.
Acute alcohol intoxication decreases skeletal muscle protein synthesis by impairing mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In 2 studies, we determined whether inhibition of branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) catabolism ameliorates the inhibitory effect of alcohol on muscle protein synthesis by raising the plasma BCAA concentrations and/or by improving the anabolic response to insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I. In the first study, 4 groups of mice were used: wild-type (WT) and mitochondrial branched-chain aminotransferase (BCATm) knockout (KO) mice orally administered saline or alcohol (5 g/kg, 1 h). Protein synthesis was greater in KO mice compared with WT controls and was associated with greater phosphorylation of eukaryotic initiation factor (eIF)-4E binding protein-1 (4EBP1), eIF4E-eIF4G binding, and 4EBP1-regulatory associated protein of mTOR (raptor) binding, but not mTOR-raptor binding. Alcohol decreased protein synthesis in WT mice, a change associated with less 4EBP1 phosphorylation, eIF4E-eIF4G binding, and raptor-4EBP1 binding, but greater mTOR-raptor complex formation. Comparable alcohol effects on protein synthesis and signal transduction were detected in BCATm KO mice. The second study used the same 4 groups, but all mice were injected with IGF-I (25 microg/mouse, 30 min). Alcohol impaired the ability of IGF-I to increase muscle protein synthesis, 4EBP1 and 70-kilodalton ribosomal protein S6 kinase-1 phosphorylation, eIF4E-eIF4G binding, and 4EBP1-raptor binding in WT mice. However, in alcohol-treated BCATm KO mice, this IGF-I resistance was not manifested. These data suggest that whereas the sustained elevation in plasma BCAA is not sufficient to ameliorate the catabolic effect of acute alcohol intoxication on muscle protein synthesis, it does improve the anabolic effect of IGF-I.
Impact of chronic alcohol ingestion on cardiac muscle protein expression.
Chronic alcohol abuse contributes not only to an increased risk of health-related complications, but also to a premature mortality in adults. Myocardial dysfunction, including the development of a syndrome referred to as alcoholic cardiomyopathy, appears to be a major contributing factor. One mechanism to account for the pathogenesis of alcoholic cardiomyopathy involves alterations in protein expression secondary to an inhibition of protein synthesis. However, the full extent to which myocardial proteins are affected by chronic alcohol consumption remains unresolved.
METHODS:
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of chronic alcohol consumption on the expression of cardiac proteins. Male rats were maintained for 16 weeks on a 40% ethanol-containing diet in which alcohol was provided both in drinking water and agar blocks. Control animals were pair-fed to consume the same caloric intake. Heart homogenates from control- and ethanol-fed rats were labeled with the cleavable isotope coded affinity tags (ICAT). Following the reaction with the ICAT reagent, we applied one-dimensional gel electrophoresis with in-gel trypsin digestion of proteins and subsequent MALDI-TOF-TOF mass spectrometric techniques for identification of peptides. Differences in the expression of cardiac proteins from control- and ethanol-fed rats were determined by mass spectrometry approaches.
RESULTS:
Initial proteomic analysis identified and quantified hundreds of cardiac proteins. Major decreases in the expression of specific myocardial proteins were observed. Proteins were grouped depending on their contribution to multiple activities of cardiac function and metabolism, including mitochondrial-, glycolytic-, myofibrillar-, membrane-associated, and plasma proteins. Another group contained identified proteins that could not be properly categorized under the aforementioned classification system.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the changes in proteins, we speculate modulation of cardiac muscle protein expression represents a fundamental alteration induced by chronic alcohol consumption, consistent with changes in myocardial wall thickness measured under the same conditions.